Treasurelaketalk (TLT) is a community service providing information on events and issues for the Treasure Lake community. TLT is not responsible for any comments posted. Each comment expresses the view of its author and not the views of this forum or any entity associated with this forum. We do not vouch for the accuracy or completeness of any post and are not responsible for the contents of any post.  We reserve the right to not publish and to delete any post.

———————————-

A property owner submitted the following letter to TLT.

Dear Ms. Moulthrop and esteemed Board Members,
I would be grateful for the courtesy of a response from you to my inquiry on August 26, 2017, requesting the authority and reasoning, legal or otherwise, as to why Chris Miller has not yet been seated as a board member. Why is the Board continuing to delay Mr. Miller’s seating?

I am not sure what you mean by “competing issues” with respect to seating Mr. Miller. The only requirement for board membership of which I am aware is that Mr. Miller must be a property owner in good standing. I understand he meets this requirement. Any reliance on Bylaw 5.7, allowing for “up to 60 days” to fill the seat has in my opinion been taken out of context. My research reflects that this 60 day period was designed to counter the impact of the Crown Resorts bloc vote. More particularly, I understand that prior to enactment of 5.7, the board would solicit property owners to apply for the vacant seat, which countered filling the vacancy by the next highest vote-getter thereby disenfranchising the popular vote. The \”60-day\” provision was intended to be applied only when none of the other candidates (if any) chose to accept the vacant seat. That is simply not the case here. Mr. Miller has accepted the open seat and I really don’t think the Board can dismiss the fact that he received 500+ actual property owner votes, the second highest number of votes without the Crown Resorts corporate bloc vote. Clearly, Mr. Miller has the popular vote.

Likewise, it is my impression that any reliance placed on delaying Mr. Miller’s seat due to his court filing to recover a $106 fine assessed to him by the TLPOA for a traffic citation to a third party who was not his guest, a policy I understand was voted down, is not sufficient to delay Mr. Miller’s seat. The TLPOA’s cross complaint against Mr. Miller for $1,300+ due to an alleged frivolous lawsuit (a cross complaint that I understand was authorized by the General Manager rather than the Board), also does not support the decision to delay Mr. Miller’s seating.

Frankly, I am aware of no legal authority or TLPOA policy in this regard that would support the Board’s continued delay of seating Mr. Miller, and for this reason I am requesting again the authority upon which the Board is relying in denying Mr. Miller his seat.

I understand following the Board of Directors meeting on August 28, 2017, Mr. Miller was told by the Board President in the presence of several other homeowners that his seating had been delayed because the Board does not want to fight with Mr. Miller. I find this statement astonishing and in my opinion fuels the suspicion that the Board is advancing personal preferences rather than the best interests of the property owners and the POA. I believe that such behavior has no place here and certainly is not a permitted reason allowing for delay of Mr. Miller’s seat under either PA law or the TLPOA governing documents, more particularly, the roles and responsibilities of Directors as set forth in the Board Member Manual, Policy A-46.

Thank you for your time. I will look forward to the courtesy of a prompt response.
Respectfully,
Gina Harasti
Non-resident property owner in good standing

3 Comments on No Response

  1. Michah says:

    Come on board, it’s time to start behaving adults.

  2. my2centsworth says:

    so , I ask this before and it Disappeared.
    WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE MILLER MAGISTRATE HEARING ON SEPT 5 2017?

    • Joseph Krill says:

      From where I sat it appeared that the lawsuit filed by the TLPOA against Mr. Miller for over $ 1,000.00 was dismissed for several reasons. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Miller against the TLPOA for $ 100.00 was dismissed and he was told he could or should file with a higher court.

Leave a Reply

Protected with IP Blacklist CloudIP Blacklist Cloud