HOA Management
All HOA’s have the same common flaw. Their government (Bylaws, Declaration) was designed so the board majority (mostly 3 votes – originally developer appointees) to keep residents at bay during construction. Our Code of Conduct was created to silence any resident elected board member. Is there a better method? There may be, and a complete transformation of this community’s structure would be well worth a discussion.
The Code of Conduct, in part, allowed the developer to cause a financial situation that damaged the community. A costly lawsuit ensued for over 3 years and a settlement was agreed by the board for a net loss in money of $153,528 (See below for details of that sorry mess). What is amazing is the residents allowed that situation to continue after we took control over 8 years ago. The board tried to fix the bylaws; a document so convoluted with legalese it cannot be fixed so residents to understand. The board will try the same on the Declaration with the same result. There are many resolutions written by previous boards that are designed to work around the governing documents when the board couldn’t get enough votes to change. In fact, the governing documents were written by lawyers and most residents signed onto this without understanding a word that is in them. Worse, board lawyers can write resolutions to do the opposite of what the governing documents allow. That flexability is good for working around bad provisions in the governing documents. But it is unbelievably bad when it allows rogue boards to abuse the community or target an individual resident. What a game this is, all at our expense.
Loren’s revision says, in easy terms, the board is responsible to the residents not themselves. Hopefully, we will have 3 candidates in May that will run on the platform to reform the community where residents have control of the board and not the other way around. In effect tearing up the Code of Conduct. In the last 15 years, the legacy of the developer still lives on, and every board since has allowed it to continue. Residents deserve to have control over the board. HOA’s are unique in that the board members are elected by the unit owners who are also the association’s customers. An everlasting conflict and conflict. There are better models of HOA effective management. We welcome the next board by control of three seat votes, will be the leaders to make this change. If successful, this new model may be the future example of how HOA’s are governed.
The old model worked well from a developer’s point of view, by making a lot of money at the expense of the community. The residents had no leverage or power to stop them. Our boards over the last 10 years have done some alarming damage to this community and ask us to only look at the good they have done. They mislead the residents by omission. Why do we allow this to continue?
This is intended to update and clarify the results of two lawsuits the Stonebridge Community Association engaged in over the past 4 years.
The Transition Lawsuit a net loss to the community:
This lawsuit was secretly initiated after negotiations for a transition settlement in 2019 broke down. In the past 4 years, the projected settlement was in the $5M range as outlined in the Mirra annual audit. However, there was a sad and losing outcome negotiated by our board of directors.
The final results on the transition lawsuit against Lennar from 2015 to 2021 cost the Association a total of $1,417,028 as reported in our audited annual financial reports from Mirra Associates.
The negotiated settlement was in three parts:
1. Settlements collected from the contractor’s insurance companies were $327,500.
2. Prime Management paid $75,000
3. Lennar paid $1,000,000
The total recovery was $1,402,500.
However, $139,000 of this settlement was recovery of our own Association’s money for electrical repairs to the clubhouse after Lennar refused to pay to fix an electrical code violation their contractor caused.
The final actual loss to the residents for this lawsuit was $153,528. The Association’s board had its attorney announce the “successful” lawsuit of the $1M, but left off the fact that the entire lawsuit resulted in a net loss and was a dismal failure. This left our reserve funding short funds that residents will have to make up in the future. In our opinion, the board’s announcement untrue by omission. All residents should remove the board members that were part of that decision.
The Election Protocol Resolution lawsuit:
The Election Protocol Resolution lawsuit was brought against the Association by Loren Sattinger and Steve Birnbaum as plaintiffs for violating the freedom of speech of the Stonebridge homeowners. The settlement was in the favor of the plaintiffs. Again, the board tried to spin the results. Part of the settlement was the board knew and decided to defend an unconstitutional resolution. The second part is they had to admit what they did was wrong. At the end of July, the board released a statement, saying in part: “The court held that the issues relating to these issues were “moot” as these were previously settled by agreement of both parties upon the passage of a new Campaign Resolution. The Court however held that three sentences of §7.07 of the Declaration written by the Developer in 2006 are blanket prohibitions of the display of signs and were unconstitutional according to New Jersey law. The court struck those three sentences because, as the judge explained, it is possible that in the future the Association might develop and enforce its sign prohibitions as to political speech…”
The first part of the board’s statement citing the “moot” ruling as a victory for the board is nonsense because that issue related to the part of the lawsuit that the plaintiffs won back in 2019. So yes, that issue is “moot” now because the plaintiffs already won on this point. This is legal mumbo jumbo, which
we have far too much of in this community.
The second part of the board’s statement was the board’s way of admitting that they knew defending the lawsuit, based on our Declaration §7.07, was unconstitutional from the beginning, but did so anyway. The board knowingly wasted $10,000 of the Association’s funds. The Association should recover the fees paid to the Association attorney for poor legal advice. That is, unless the attorney was directed to defend the lawsuit by the board regardless of the merits. The plaintiffs advised the board that the Resolution was unconstitutional before the lawsuit was filed, but the board went forward] with it anyway without making any requested changes. We find fault with the board for not seeking an independent and non-compromised legal opinion, since the Association’s attorney was conflicted by trying to defend his own inaccurate legal advice.
We should demand to know how this occurred so something of this nature will be avoided in the future. This should never happen again. Watch for the Stonebridge Advisory Group’s candidate Endorsements in the May 2023 board election. We must stop this mismanagement by future board
members.
Urge your friends and neighbors to join this advisory group by forwarding this link to them.
https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/mail-list/
Nov 8, 2022
The board of directors misled the residents on the results of the Transition Lawsuit. The lawsuit resulted in a net loss of $153,528, a complete failure.
The Election Protocol Lawsuit was settled as well in the favor of the plaintiffs.
We will provide a honest and complete explanation on the results of a board that failed in two legal actions in the coming weeks.
Please ask your friends and neighbors to join this advisory group by forwarding this link to them. https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/mail-list/
Transition Lawsuit Financial loss:
Total received from lawsuit (4 years) $1,402,500.00
2015-2021 Total Expenses $1,417,028.00
Total 4-year loss $ -153,528.00 (Backup data to follow)
Election Resolution Protocol Lawsuit
Ill advised lawsuit defending a losing unconstitutional Resolution by the board. The resolution was rendered unenforceable by the court. The governing documents used to defend the resolution were also declared unconstitutional by the court. The party’s involved should resign and step down from a leadership role.
The Stonebridge Advisory Group supports approving of the Stonebridge bylaws amendment that were distributed. We evaluated the document and see significant improvement in correcting many items in our governing documents. Many items were inserted by the developer and are now removed.
There are several other items that require attention, and the committee is aware of them. In the next round to further correct our governing documents we are confident they will be addressed.
SAG recommends its members to vote yes and approve this amendment.
Rambling….. about Stonebridge’s future
Picture a community that projects (budgets) all the day to day expenditures of a community for the year and a computer system that oversees that spending via purchase order and contracts. All spending is against the budgeted line items. Management cuts the checks and spends against already proposed limits. Now the board goes home, we just reduced their “babysitting” of the management company. The management company is now measured on how well they perform and cannot overspend without alerts on all the board members phones.
Long term projects are added to the budget as separate line items and may extend beyond one year. The accounting system manages all that as well with transfers from reserves. Emergencies are easily handled because they don’t come up that often and most are not emergencies but unexpected events.
Now, both management and the board are no longer reactive, but are more oriented in planning ahead and not getting caught off guard.
What I just described goes on every day in the construction trade. A contractor develops a budget for an owner, hires the subcontractors and manages them. Then reconciles all the billing for the owner to write the check. We did that with 10’s of million’s of dollar contracts every year, in fact $210M in 2000. Why am I writing this? Because I was hired to fix that contractors problem. They did not have an accounting system that allowed a good process to be created. So, the procedures and process were created and followed until they failed, thrown out and a new set produced. That rapidly failed as well. This repeated constantly and as the company grew it was clear something had to be done. The main problem was the accounting system in place at the time. The fix was implementing the most modern accounting system, available at the time, that addressed all the failures this company was experiencing. The cost cutting that system produced was calculated at 14% in each of the following 2 years. A total of just under $60M that turned into profit and more work opportunity due to competition. Who brought me in? The sole owner because he knew the company had a problem.
Stonebridge is a small $4M operation and have a management team with 5 on staff and an entire office behind them. 5 board members that work many hours, countless committee members that work for free. A wildly inefficient operation. How many here do you know have the ability to transform this company?
Here is an article that doesn’t address what I describe it does point out how easily HOA’s get into trouble. Add to that how often the players changes. We are where we are because to the board acts as one and will never admit they are wrong. I am an advocate of hiring an executive director that manages the community under contract to us. Put in the systems that all big operations run under that do not cost much.
In my opinion, the link to this article points
https://www.hoaleader.com/public/Individual-HOA-Board-Members-Your-Authority-Limited.cfm
out what may be the center of the “board – management company” argument. I believe that there is a poor delineation of responsibilities of all the concerned participants. If a policy is approved by a collective board, then there is no need to “manage” what the management company is already doing. When a proper, concise and functioning modern accounting system is the center, the funds are properly managed because the board “see’s into the system on a constant basis. Parameters are defined and alerts are set up. Accounting systems cannot be overridden. The manager cannot stray too far without notice. Overall, everything in a HOA revolve around money spent. Residents are not unreasonable but become suspicious with bad communication. It is difficult to write concise messages. This writing is an example of that.
If you think this may be of interest to anyone else, feel free to forward it on. It will be printed on the Stonebridge Advisory Group website as well.
Stonebridge Advisory Group (SAG)
https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/
Dec 8, 2021
COVID had a devastating effect on all of the Resident’s of Stonebridge and our lifestyle. Hopefully the future will bring better times. But, we are less than a month from Election Day and SAG is concerned that the Residents won’t hold up their obligation and vote in force. We oppose mail-in ballots for many reasons and the major one being they are in the hands of voters while campaigns are still going on. But, on the other hand, it may make it easier to vote and that is good for the vote count. While this does not matter to people that vote party lines, it certainly has an effect on voters that may not have had the time to get a chance to see and hear the candidates.
Stonebridge did not host a debate between local candidates and that is a shame and a disservice to the community. Maybe they are considering to do this before the election. SAG hopes they reconsider in the future and residents should make their views on this subject known to the Board. Not doing this has a negative impact on our elections because we may not be as prepared and we may not have all the knowledge to vote for the most effective candidate .
Stonebridge residents can make their power known simply by voting. That is right, casting a ballot in Stonebridge will be counted and registered. All the politicians know and rely on those numbers for their strategy. That is why there are so many campaign signs outside our gates. They do this because we have power in numbers. However, on the negative side, reading a sign or flyer does not promote the essence of any candidates worthiness. Face to face meetings do because It is hard to lie to someone in person.
Here is an example, we have 1,700+ residents less the residents registered in other states. In local elections that can be the difference of winning and losing. On the county and state level a large turnout vote from Monroe has a large impact and can swing these elections. The politicians occupying the many government offices decide our fate. Why would you want that left to chance by not voting or not taking the time to find out who to vote for? A civics club in Stonebridge may be appropriate in the future.
Politicians take notice of those numbers and it has an impact on their decisions. Stonebridge has a very good voting record but it could be better. It doesn’t take much effort to vote. If you think of not voting because you “don’t like politics”, “don’t like anyone running”. or any other reason you are doing Stonebridge, Monroe and yourselves a disservice. Total count has a very large effect on our ability for the leverage we must attain to convince the political bodies that we want what we deserve. We are shorted Millions of dollars over the last dozen years in school aid and we haven’t had the numbers to change that. Here is a starting point. Read about this on the SAG website https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/monroe-state-school-funding/ and the many othere items discussed on that site.
This past year, our residents were a large help in getting the State law passed that exempted HOA’s from a COVID related lawsuit. Insurance companies do not cover their clients during a pandemic, so a bill was introduced, passed and signed into law in record time. SAG and our residents rose to that effort and the politicians acted. One of the major reasons for this effort was to remove some of the draconian rules put in place by the government and the Association. Unfortunately, many are still in effect because of last minute changes in the law. This law ends Dec 31 and we do not know if they will pass another however, we will try to find out and let everyone know. Until the pandemic is declared over the lawyers and the insurance companies will continue to impose rules.
For mail in ballots, to be safe, have them postmarked before Nov 2. The library has a secure drop box. If you haven’t registered to vote then register at https://voter.svrs.nj.gov/register (Deadline Oct 12) . You can apply for a mail in ballot https://www.state.nj.us/state/elections/assets/pdf/forms-vote-by-mail/vote-by-mail-english-middlesex.pdf but it is getting a little late for this option. Or simply go to the clubhouse on Nov 2 and vote in person.
Who to vote for: Well this is certainly a personal choice and SAG will not suggest that in this newsletter. Ask your neighbors and friends maybe they are more informed then you. Remember every politician will say they will bring change, reduce your taxes, stop the building, be responsible, improve your quality of life and they may. We have less than a month to be comfortable in our decision. If your investigation doesn’t make you comfortable for a candidate then don’t vote for them, leave that line blank but still cast a vote. If the ballot indicates “Vote for Three” you can vote for “Up To Three.” You can vote for 0,1 2 or 3. Good luck in picking the leaders in the coming election, choose wisely. If you do not like any candidate then only vote for the Public Questions this way you will be counted in the total vote count. Let’s help ourselves by voting.
Mar 7, 2021
The Health Waiver was released to the residents from management with instruction if not signed the residents will not be permitted to use the clubhouse. The waiver contains legal language that is unclear what risks are residents assuming by agreeing to this document. The board tried to deflect the negative responses at the Zoom Open Board Meeting with an explanation that the waiver was sent for residents to comment on. Not too convincing and conflicts with the email the waiver was attached to. This is very disturbing that 5 board members are in lock step voting 5-0 on every on issue that may not be in the best interests of the community. Without dissenting votes there is no discussion which is unhealthy. Remember two board members ran on a platform in the Oct election promising change.
Mar 4, 2021
SAG opposed the 5th Amendment to the Bylaws and had a dialog with the board but unfortunately they passed the amendment with a 5-0 vote. Not one board member opposed this process. There was not enough time for SAG to research all of the changes the board wrote into this amendment. We did find, and the board did change some glaring errors in the draft. However, there may be more and now to correct any possible errors would require a majority vote of residents and may handcuff future boards. This process taken is disturbing.
Dec 31, 2020
Proposed amendment to the Stonebridge Bylaws
First and foremost Happy New Year from the Stonebridge Advisory Group. Second, the Board of Directors sent an email earlier that discussed a Bylaw’s Amendment #5 that they will “..act upon” at the Jan Open Board Meeting. We suggest you familiarize yourself with the contents of this very important event and the method the Board is taking in it’s introduction and possible approval. It may have a negative effect of the community. More to come next week.
Law firm explaining the State Law
The Board’s Draft Amendment to compare:
Amendment To Compare
Dec 6, 2020
Recap of the Dec 3rd OBM Resolution Issue
Combined opinion of members of the Stonebridge Advisory Group (SAG)
SAG Email to subscribers
At the Dec 3, 2020 OBM this Agenda (in part) included VII. Arc Resolution Ratification , VIII 2020 Committee Organization Resolution and other proposals which were all approved.
These two resolutions and proposals for approval were introduced and voted on and approved in the same meeting. This procedure is not advised by professionals. In fact, there was a seminar last week on this and election rules hosted by the Cooperator organization, this type of procedure was strongly not advised. If you are interested in this, you can watch the seminar that was sponsored by our management company, Taylor, our Auditor, Mirra Associates and the law firm of Hill Wallack (see below how to watch it).
At an OBM earlier this year, indicated the board stated that it would not vote on a newly introduced resolutions at the same meeting. Despite its promise, the board went ahead and did it anyway at this meeting. This resolution regulating the committees, in our opinion, applies oppressive restrictions on committee members ability to communicate with the community. At the very least, this should have been introduced at this meeting for discussion and not voted on. A similar process was followed in March 2019 and the result was the passage of the Election Protocol Resolution lawsuit which would not have happened if the Board followed professional standards. We just had an election and hoped for a change. However, the two new members and the three incumbents did not challenge the process or the content of the resolution. The 5 board members voted unanimously for approval of all the resolutions and proposals as written without any discussion or comments. It was mentioned by a board member that the Committee Resolution “.. has been on the website for some time” which means they did this knowingly and believed that this was adequate notification to the community and did not care about residents previous complaints or the Board’s commitments to change its procedures . This clearly demonstrates the flawed concept that they can post a document on a website and the 1700 residents will somehow find it. Judging how a person responds when caught off guard tells a lot. You can judge honesty very effectively by those responses. The website and the ability to communicate efficiently, another 5 year failure, is saved for another day.
The seminar’s main purpose was a discussion about election procedures. At the 46:00 minute mark of the seminar during Q&A, the panels professionals expressed why it is important for a board to have disclosure at a previous open meeting before a vote takes place. The community residents have the right to understand what rules the board is putting in place. By doing this would avoid future Boards having to defend resident complaints about lack of transparency and secrecy. Ignoring this recommended principle was the reason for the costly mistake that led to the election lawsuit also with advice of counsel.
Frankly, this has occurred for over 5 years through numerous boards. All through those years we have had numerous different board members and this still goes on. Have ex-board members brought forth issues that would make the management of the community better? Or, were they intimidated by the confidentiality agreement? The point is that for over 5 years the only constant is that we have the same current president and the same attorney. In the seminar, they discussed what do the professional community managers, auditors and lawyers do when a board doesn’t listen to their sound advice? That discussion was very informative and it seems this is a common occurrence in HOA’s. The evidence is that this may be the issue here as well. When all Board vote tally’s are 5-0 votes for approval, that immediately suggests you should pay closer attention. Is it possible that in the past 5 years every board may have made every decision properly and without error? We believe it is highly unlikely and then credibility would be an issue.
Watch the seminar and take notice what is going on as it relates to our community. Who you elect determines how you will be governed. Stonebridge is not different from any other community that elects its board. . There is no doubt the residents in well run communities are better off. Also, be wary of board member’s that reap praise on each other. The job they do will be judged by the residents they serve, not themselves. In the past, board members signed confidentiality agreements. We are not sure about this current board. Would any member disclose faulty procedures if they are occurring, or are they barred from doing that? The committee resolution has the same effect. Remember there is another election for 3 seats in May 2021. Please consider running for a board seat if you feel you could introduce efficiency into the community’s processes and procedures.
You can register and then watch the Dec 3, 2020 webinar that was recorded at this site: Recording
Comments from the SAG subscribers are welcome by responding to this email. Tell us what you think.
Have a Happy Holiday Season and a Happy and Healthy New Year.
Thank you,
Steve Birnbaum
Stonebridge Advisory Group
This is the original email for reference:
This email is sent residents that subscribed to the Stonebridge Advisory Group’s (SAG) Informational Email. If you do not want any of these emails, please opt out at the end of this message. Thank you for subscribing and promoting this Stonebridge Advisory Group information service. The recent increase in subscribers show Stonebridge Residents are eager for information. Urge neighbors and friends to subscribe.
Dec 1, 2020
New Board’s (2020-2021) First Open Board Meeting
On Wed Dec 2nd at 7 PM there is an open board meeting. The invitation was sent by Taylor and the Agenda in a separate email. Unfortunately they did not attach any documents that will be discussed on Wed. One particular item is resolution “2020 Committee Organization Resolution” that replaces an older resolution. In the past, the Boards introduced and voted on resolutions and the residents had no opportunity, or very little time, to understand the impact. Resolutions modify our bylaws with no resident input, just 3 residents can pass resolutions. Changes in bylaws must be voted on by the residents and are like a constitution and are very hard to change. Residents should take notice of any documents that attempt to do that.
The previous board committed to change that policy by first introducing a resolution in a previous meeting, thus allowing resident input at subsequent meetings. Then, after resident input, they would call for a vote.at a later meeting. We hope this is the policy this new board takes but we won’t know until the meeting takes place on Wed. This is a new Board and two of its members campaigned on a policy of change we are looking closely at this meeting to see if they start to carry out that policy.
Below is a review of the the committee resolution by Loren Sattinger. For those of you that may not know Loren he is an attorney.
The December 2nd Zoom Open Board meeting agenda has the following item to consider:
VIII. 2020 Committee Organization Resolution
Residents can access the 2020 Committee Organization Resolution on the Stonebridge website under the Documents Tab under “Governing Docs/Resolutions”
For your convenience you can download the resolution here.
Read the Resolution, paying particular attention to the following three paragraphs.
–
I. Paragraph 6. Minutes: There are no provisions to release any Committee minutes to the community. Minutes are only sent to the Board.
–
II. Paragraph 1. Homeowners are not invited to attend Committee meetings unless “invited to a portion of the meeting to discuss specific areas of concern after which they shall leave the meeting.”
Paragraph 4. Board Approval/Channels of Communication: IMPORTANT. PLEASE READ THIS PARAGRAPH IN ITS ENTIRETY.
=
Paragraph 4. of this Resolution acts as a Confidentiality Agreement and a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) for all Committee members. The secrecy and lack of transparency from the Board will continue if this Resolution is passed as is. If any Board member claims that they are for transparency and openness and then votes to pass this Resolution, the secrecy will continue. Board members need to remind themselves what they stand for.
–
The Board can introduce the Resolution at the Zoom Open Board meeting. However, the Board should not vote on the Resolution until the next scheduled open Board meeting, or late, once the community has a chance to read it and weigh in. Delay the vote! In effect, the Board can hide Committee recommendations forever if the Resolution passes. The Committee members are prohibited from disclosing their findings and recommendations without Board approval. We homeowners deserve better and open communications.
The SAG has 133 subscribers please help us expand this group. Currently there are two methods of communication, This and Facebook for residents to engage issues. Forward this email to anyone you feel may be interested in sharing this information. Anyone you know can subscribe to this informational resident information service by registering at https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/mail-list/. The website has information that all residents may be concerned about. This was put together from comments of residents sent to us.
SAG Email to Subscribers Nov 1, 2020
Nov 4, 2020
Email explanation of lawsuit and Election Committee Quitting.
The SAG supports an immediate need to seating an Election Committee. We would like to share this with our subscribers to avoid the last Election Committee’s poor decision in drafting Election Rules.
For background, the Election Committee drafted the Election Rules Protocol which was adopted as a Resolution by the board at a special meeting held on March 5, 2019. The meeting was scheduled for 1:00 PM and only about 20 homeowners were in attendance. The Election Rules Protocol was not shared by the Election Committee or by the board with the community before the special meeting was held, despite being asked to distribute the Resolution so that those attending would be familiar with it. Not a single person in the community knew what was being adopted unless they attended the March 5 meeting. It was only after that meeting that the Resolution was circulated to the community.
Loren Sattinger and I, with the agreement of the SAG group, formally notified the board that Election Rules Protocol Resolution violated the New Jersey Constitution and was not in conformity with several NJ Supreme Court rulings, and it was unlawful as written. We received advice from a constitutional law attorney who confirmed our assessment. She contacted the board urging them to revoke the Resolution as written and revise it to be in conformity with NJ law. The board refused to revise the Resolution, saying that the Association’s attorney said that it complied in all respects with NJ law. We filed a complaint asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the rules from being enforced immediately, and for a permanent injunction against enforcing the Resolution. The court granted the TRO and set a date for a hearing on the request for a permanent injunction. At the court hearing, the judge indicated he was going to grant the permanent injunction. The attorney for Stonebridge requested that he and our attorney could work out mutually agreeable changes to the Resolution so that it would comply with NJ law. The result was that a Consent Order that was agreed to that changed the rules. The Consent Order removed the provisions that we objected to and added all of the provisions we sought in the first place. The reluctance of the Election Committee to agree to any changes and the board refusing to make any changes resulted in expense to the Association that could have been avoided. Why is Stonebridge’s attorney who advised the Election Committee and the board that the Election Rules Protocol he reviewed and said complied with NJ law still employed by the board? His advice about the legality of the Election Rules Protocol was certainly wrong. We believe the Election Committee Chair should have been removed by the board when the lawsuit was lost, but that did not happen.
Please note: the lawsuit about the Election Rules Protocol only addressed the rules for Stonebridge board elections and the right’s candidates have to freely campaign in our community. It did not address anything else about general elections, either local, state or federal.
After creating this avoidable mistake, one would think they would reevaluate their position and use that knowledge to better serve Stonebridge. Instead a year and a half they all decided to quit at the same time. Our residents can draw their own conclusion about that. But now, a committee dedicated to fair elections may be possible for the upcoming election of 3 board seats in May 2021.
Nov 1, 2020
Dear Subscribers;
The election of Richard Lasker and Anthony Aliotta suggests there were more residents voting for change than for the establishment. However, the new board returned the current president for the next seven months. Two members, Elliot Spar and Jerry Mirelli have 1 1/2 years experience and Michael Berezein has over 7 years’ experience. Richard Lasker and Anthony Aliotta have a number of years experience by residing in the community and elected the first time they ran for office. We are confident the new board will take this as an opportunity to start the necessary transformation of Stonebridge management.
One major issue the residents have brought up is the unknown decisions the board made in the past. Not every process and procedure is voted on at the Open Board Meetings. Many items are discussed and voted on in the privacy of their workshops. We are told all decisions are voted on and the majority rules. But, we are not told of those votes. This makes elections in Stonebridge difficult because residents do not know these secret voting records of the board members seeking re-election. Board member’s platforms should include their voting record.
(SAG) – recommends all workshop agenda items that require a vote that is not voted on in a Open Board Meeting be made public and recorded in meeting minutes. Reasons for how they voted should be in there as well. Voting yes or no needs clarification.
Another issue is residents seeking a board seat do not have the means and proper time required to meet resident and make their platform known. Incumbents have an advantage due to name recognition. This is a flaw in our Election process and has been an issue for many years. Although, the recently approved election rules were revised to address the legal problem in the original election rules, they do not represent a fair election process. The time frame is too short for candidate’s to express their views. It takes time to cover 1,700+ residents and more time is required. The Candidate’s night does not reach enough households for many reasons and are not distributed after that one night. The Meet and Greet suffer for the same reason. It is our opinion, that resident’s do care about what happens in their community however, they do not have enough information to make educated selections during a vote – so they don’t vote. Out of 946 homes 376 households didn’t vote. That is 40% and in our opinion is too many. Although the 570 votes cast is the largest vote count here that suggests more residents thought change was necessary. When small amounts of voters participate in elections it becomes more like a popularity contest – name recognition. Every resident should be engaged in our elections with clear and concise platforms. This would take the adversarial component away that is prevalent over past elections. We can do better and we should.
(SAG) – recommends the time of campaigning be lengthened, Candidate’s night should be an open forum with residents in attendance to ask questions in person. More than one Candidate’s night should be held. Management’s communication system should be made available for candidates to reach residents. Residents that do not want to participate would have the option to opt out of that subscribed distribution. The process should not be rushed and many residents that are snowbirds are out of town in April and May and they need a way to participate. All the tools required for this are available in comprehensive modern management systems that should be implemented in Stonebridge.
In the past, many residents suggested Stonebridge was being micromanaged by the board. Because of the secrecy and confidentiality agreements it was difficult for residents to substantiate if that was true. We took control of the board over 5 years ago and we are on our third management company. That suggests a problem.
(SAG) – recommends this issue be discussed by the board and they should either confirm that occurred and how they will handle that, or that it isn’t true and comment on that as well.
The bylaws were written by the developer, and more than modifications are in order. If residents actually are interested in reading them, more often than not, they need an attorney to explain them. We have seen many times attorneys have different opinions and that is why courts exist. Creating governing documents that may be able to be shorter and language simplified could be possible. Just removing the word “Developer” is not sufficient.
(SAG) recommends a new review of this with a different approach with simplification as the goal.
The election reform should be addressed immediately because of the election in May for 3 board seats. Resident voted for change this time and may do the same in May. Those Director seats will have a two year term so time is of the essence for that reform. While many more charges will be required than what is outlined here, the goal should be that residents know how the board operates. That will change the underlying distrust that occured in the past. it brings an honest and open relationship between the three main groups – the elected board, the management company and the customer’s of the association that pay the bills, the residents. Residents can read and understand clear, concise and truthful explanations of management’s decisions. Bad decisions are difficult to articulate and that leads to explosions of complaints. If it is good for the community residents will buy in to decisions.
The SAG has 131 subscribers please help us expand this group. Currently there are two methods of communication, This and Facebook for residents to engage issues. Forward this email to anyone you feel may be interested in sharing this information. Anyone you know can subscribe to this informational resident information service by registering at https://sbadvisorygroup.hnccorp.com/mail-list/. The website has information that all residents may be concerned about. This was put together from comments of residents sent to us. You can aend this link to friends as well. Latest News
August 9, 2020:
Another State Borrowing scheme without a vote:
Remember Christie Whitman’s $2.8B borrowing scheme from 1997 that we are still paying off? Well Gov Murphy is trying to do the same with a $10B borrowing scheme without a constitutionally required vote and calling it “Pandemic Relief.” Thankfully, the GOP has sued him and the Supreme Court is bringing to light that if granted Murphy could spend it on anything he wants to spend it on. When leaders circumvent a vote to borrow money the outcome has no chance on being successful. Happening all around us and it is time to start asking questions. Actually, it is long overdue. Read this article
_Borrowing_$10B_NJ_ Supreme_ Court
July August 2020:
Lack of information distributed to the residents: Residents are becoming concerned of board decisions washout proper distribution of information. However, they have no method of organizing focused support to have their concerns addressed.
From the last Zoom meeting
HVAC: From the limited information available, it seems the board hired Concord to evaluate, prepare specs and RFP’s. It appears Concord possibly was allowed to bid on the projects as well and possibly have won the bid. It is our opinion this procedure is questionable and raises the issue of conflict.
HVAC Project Funding: It appears the project will be funded with bank loans. After 12 years of usage on a mechanical system there doesn’t seem to be any reserves put aside for a replacement. It is our opinion this procedure is questionable.
Attorney’s summary of Election Rules Lawsuit: His statement that it came as a surprise to him, after the association agreed the Election Rules (that they wrote) were rescinded (because of a court imposed injunction), and the rules we proposed before the lawsuit was filed (approved by the court) were adopted, that the lawsuit had another part to it is troubling. Asking for Summary Judgement by the court was in the original complaint and was never dismissed. We believe he is too good a lawyer for a misstep such as that. So we question the motives.
We do acknowledge him correcting his misleading and inaccurate statements at an earlier meeting that the plaintiffs were not seeking any monitory gain. He was aware of that fact before making the false statements at the April 2019 meeting (recording available). The board also sent out a community wide email with those inflammatory remarks. The board never send out a retraction. They appear satisfied to let the residents go on believing the former and never knowing the truth. We question the board thinking this is appropriate behavior.
Integrity and honesty should be demanded by residents. It is our opinion residents should be better informed and we believe the SAG partially fulfill that role. Speak to your friends and neighbors and offer them this information as well. It is our money and community.
Tree Issue:
In 2010 the dead tree issue was addressed by the predecessor of this group while the developer controlled the board with 3 votes. They did not take up this case so residents did. The attorney at the time was the same attorney who is now the attorney for the current board and should be well versed in this subject. After numerous meetings with the Mayor, Council President (now the mayor), business administrator and township engineer (same as now) the township took our position and issued this letter Monroe Township Tree Issue Township. This agreement is still in effect. This is a very costly issue that residents are being told is their responsibility. While that may be true but not for all.