A Nomination for Administrator

I am honored to nominate Luis Peraza for the position of Administrator. I have spoken with Luis and he believes he is qualified and would very much like to serve.

While it is arguable whether the position of Administrator is a full-time job, it is most certainly a twelve-month job. The demands of running LaMarina, especially during the off-season, have become substantial enough that having an absentee Administrator is no longer adequate. We, therefore, require a person to hold that position who is here most of the year, has the proper working visa and who can speak the language. There is nothing in the Condominium Regimen or our old By-Laws that prohibits a non-owner from being Administrator.

Luis has been our Manager or Assistant Manager for many years now. He is on good terms with the vast majority of owners. He is familiar with each and every unit at LaMarina. He knows our culture and he knows the problems of the building. He lives year-round in Mazatlan, has the proper papers to work in Mexico and speaks both English and Spanish. He will require little or no training. He can be legally compensated without negative tax consequences. We already have in place a Finance Committee, Supervisory Committee and Building & Grounds Committee to support him and a budget for him to follow.

Luis' popularity might actually help to bridge the wide gap of mistrust that has affected inter-owner relations these past several years. I believe he is the right person for the job and hope others will share my view.


Steve Richter, 503

Is La Marina prepared for the March Assembly?

As the March meeting approaches there are many issues that have arisen or are on-going. Hopefully, many owners will offer some words of wisdom regarding some of these issues. I have some observations and some questions.

It seems that in every newsletter and every other email some one feels compelled to point out how much the pool is being used, how warm it is, how safe it really is, etc., etc., etc. Questions: Since it is the only pool available, what other pool could people use? Why is there such a need to put a positive spin on the assets of the new pool? Why are there so many different versions of what happened at last year's meeting regarding financing the pool? Why is the 1:1 assessment approved at the meeting and carried out by the administration (after many owners challenged the legality of it) being brought up again?

The meeting in November was established as the new "annual assembly" and the up-coming March meeting was billed as a follow-up to complete unfinished tasks such as the legal situation and considering the annual budget that was passed with the stipulation that it be carefully reviewed and revised as necessary. Questions: Why does the agenda include items such as a return to a single administrator rather than the Administrative Council that was approved in accordance with legal counsel in November? Why was the revised budget that was vigorously researched by the Finance Committee and submitted by the Treasurer not provided to the owners with the agenda?

For the last two years, substancial budget overruns have been buried in misleading financial reports, downplayed, minimized and/or blamed on an owner's dispute over illegal assessments. Do owner's understand that not having any reserves is illegal? Is everyone prepared for the nearly 30% increase in the monthly assessment in the budget that was passed in November? Does everyone realize it is actually more than that because previously the property tax was part of our assessment and now it is our own responsibility? Without changes in how things are run at La Marina will we continue to pour money into it while elevators routinely break down, electrical wiring and plumbing deteriorate and we receive fewer and fewer services for our money?

Openness or Obstacles (Facts or Filters)

Apparently two members of the Administrative Council have returned to their previous pattern of suppressing information, to whit: the announcement on the bulletin board at La Marina directing inquiries regarding finances not to the Treasurer the third and equal member of the Administrative Council and the one who has the most financial information, but to the secretary...only. Isn't this filtering of information what we've been dealing with for nearly four years, now? Wasn't this pattern of with holding information, providing inaccurate information, suppressing significant details, glossing over serious problems, what got La Marina into the current financial crisis that led our past board president and current Administrative Council President to exclaim "not passing a new budget would be financially irresponsible?" Of course, no one was able to examine that budget and had no idea what it entailed. Is it any wonder there are numerous questions?

And if questions are becoming burdensome to Luis, what kind of solution is requiring "soft and hard copies" of requests to the secretary? Why isn't all the financial information posted on the bulletin board rather than edicts from two members of the Council who are not even responsible for the financial information? Talk about taking steps to be obstructive! If homeowners had the information it wouldn't be a problem, would it?

Is this sensitive information? You bet it is! Every homeowner has a right to know exactly how our money is being spent, who is spending it and why. It should not be necessary to beg and plead for this information. It should be readily available to each and every homeowner. There should be no secrets! The new regime requires us to make all our financial decisions at the annual meeting and then we have to live with those decisions until the next meeting. Only a thoroughly and completely informed ownership can render the proper decisions. We must have ALL the information to make the proper decisions.

Let's learn from past mistakes, keep everyone in the loop and avoid posturing.

Some Reflections on the November Assembly Meeting

By now most owners who couldn't make it to LM for the Special Assembly must be wondering what it was all about and what happened. I hope more 'beneficiaries' and owners will share their perceptions, because the meeting was extremely complicated, disorganized and as frustrating and confusing as the last meeting in March. Some of the frustration and confusion ensued as a result of one of my pet peeves-not following procedures such as parliamentary rules and voting procedures. The ostensible purpose of the meeting was to make LM legal and remove the basis for any legal challenge to LM operations and condo fees an owner might make. There are many of us who aren't sure we can claim all was handled properly after such a poorly run meeting. Although much pain was taken to call the meeting legally (i.e. the bank represented, a quorum of owners/beneficiaries, a properly elected president of the Assembly, etc, etc.), no steps were taken to verify condo ownership or proxies. The first officer elected had to step aside because he had no trust in his name.

The voting was highly questionable. All votes were counted as 1 (no 1.8 for two bedroom units).There were 68 condos represented and counts were made by counting raised hands and fingers. Couples were actually seen to both cast a vote for their single unit and at least one vote count came to 40-39. You do the math.

We were told we had to hurry and vote to make our condominium a legal entity, rush to vote in a new structure, vote new people to the council (which is now the new structure), vote on a name for a corporation to handle the finances, name the same officers for the new corporation, elect a Committee of Vigilance, among other things. The chaos, questions and repeated vote counting were exacerbated by the bank representative whose attendance was necessary for the meeting to be legal. She was 45 minutes late and could only stay until 12:30. Therefore, when the subject of a new budget came up, there was no time to discuss why a new budget was necessary or why the new budget would raise condominium fees considerably without replacing the reserves or ensuring our obligations to retiring employees.

When members objected and moved to continue with the current budget recommended by our Board of Directors last March until a new budget could be carefully formulated and reviewed by the membership, the new Council President (who was the former president of the board) had the shocking gall (my opinion) to charge it would be financially irresponsible not to pass the new budget (which no one saw until the meeting)! Where was this great sense of fiscal prudence last March and later in the spring when many owners begged the board and administrator to reconsider the expensive pool project and work to replenish the reserves first?

Meeting outcomes: We no longer have an administrator. Our Council of Administration will be in charge of seeing that the new corporation properly maintains LM and is made up of a President, Secretary and Treasurer (Dave Lewis, Nula Fales and Gail Hudson, respectively). The Committee of Vigilance exercises oversight over everything and is made up of Adriana Gloekler, Barry Hudson, Jeff George, Luis Gomez, Don Vandergon and Wendell Stroud. The annual meeting will now be held in November so that a yearly budget can be approved before the start of the fiscal year, but the March meeting will be held as scheduled to clean up the details of the new legal/corporate entity that was created.

It was confirmed by our attorney that LM has not been operating within the condominium laws of Sinaloa since it was formed; occupancy fees, parking fees and other fees and special assessments are illegal; and there are very specific laws regarding penalties for non-payment of the monthly condo fees. The Georges and others have been saying this for years, but many at LaMarina refused to believe it or even investigate these issues until forced into it by Jeff George legally refusing to pay any fees. The denial of our leadership, administrators and various owners/beneficiaries has cost us all dearly. As a result of their inaction, the Georges cannot be legally made to pay the past due fees. Will anyone be held accountable for this negligence?

If anyone who was at the meeting has corrections or clarifications to my recollections, please add them.

Would you operate a business without liability insurance?

At the March Assembly meeting, the membership voted to "authorize the administrator to purchase a general liability policy for $800 for a two million dollar coverage." We have just received word from Lic. Juan Chong that La Marina has "no coverage for liability, no coverage for the building." This is totally unacceptable and subjects us all to great and needless risk.

Legal Matters

On 10/14/06 11:35 AM, "Carlos Laguette wrote:


On April 2006, I requested from a Notary Public, to notify the Administrator that the resolutions of the March 9 Assembly, based on less than 75% favorable votes for a new pool to be paid equally by 103 units, were illegal and invalid, based on Article l9 of the Condominiums Law of the State of Sinaloa. He (the notary) refused, stating that it was not in his position to notify anyone of a violation to Laws and that besides the legal term for declaring the Assembly nullified, had probably expired, and recommended a Lawyer I could consult this with. I phoned the Lawyer and he said that, based on ŒMerchandise Associations Laws‚ the legal term was 15 days. The Notary Public was Humarán Castellanos and the Lawyer Rodrigo Llausas. The very same that are now the present legal advisors to our board and for which we are paying a monthly assessment on which we were not consulted, just charged without any votes taken.

I then summoned the services of Lic. Juan F. Huerta Robles to proceed in the courts against the resolutions. He agreed that they were illegal and invalid and that there was no expiration date. Only a dozen co-owners responded to my request for funds to proceed with a suit. The funds were returned to owners by Adriana because we considered that at least 25% of owners should be acting together so that in case of losing the suit we could proceed with a Special Assembly.

I respectfully submit that the November l4th Assembly be limited to a resolution on the name change only and for questions and answers on what the lawyers have concocted for us with the support of the present board and administrator on which I do not have any confidence at all. Several months should then be allowed for proper appraisal and decisions on the course that La Marina should take in the future including correction of malfeasances.