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.