The Honeymoon is Over

Well, I thought it would take longer, but it is clear that the board has splintered, not even three weeks into the year. The new board was elected on July 14, 2007. By July 28, the gloves came off and the ethics became questionable.Let me advise you what has happened.If you weren't aware, Stephen Davis resigned from the board on July 14, 2007. He was replaced by Rick Graf - who was the elected alternate.Joe Brinkman has been hired as one of our maintenance personell. The other position has been offered to Jed. He has demanded more money that was originally offered. It appears the board is willing to give it to him.On July 21, 2007, the board met to deal with the ongoing crisis of not having an office manager or staff. During that time, I advised the board of actions that had been dealt with by the previous board.There were two property issues that invovled the improper trespass on a Seven Bays Easement and a homeowner who wanted to receive approval on an addition that violated a setback requirement.The previous board had advised the homeowner who violated the easement to remove the offending trespass and had denied the building addition for the other homeowner until such time as he could comply with the setback requirements.Of course, the homeowners sensed a new board and prevailed upon the new members to take up the issue again. During the discussion on the setback application, the board voted again to decline approval until the owner could comply with the setback requirements.The easement issue was a little more complicated. Linda Schindler is presently on the board. Her husband, Daryl Schindler was involved in the construction of the wall that is the trespass onto the Seven Bays Easement. I spoke up on the 21st of July and asserted that Linda had to be removed from the discussion because she had a conflict. The board discussed it and Linda agreed to remove herself from the discussion. Because of other business, the board did not get around to addressing the easement matter with finality. The last act of the previous board with regard to this matter was to direct that the offending trespass be removed.One week later, on July 28, 2007, the board met again. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present at the meeting and it was clear that the remainder of the board took full advantage of this fact.I give you now the letter I wrote to the board this morning. I asked for their prompt reply, but no one but Margot Rach has responded. With Margots permission, I will post her reply shortly.It has been my pledge since I took office that sunshine is the best policy. I think that the homeowners have the right to know what is going on in their association.We presently have no water license hanging in the office. Seems that this would be more important than getting Phase II. I cannot sanction expansion of our system when we don't even have the ability to maintain our present one.But for now, let's simply address the behavior your board, or rather, a few on your board have taken. I give you now my letter to the board asking them to explain their behavior and the justification they have for their actions.Linda,I am deeply disturbed not only by the tone of your email's yesterday, but the imperiousness of them.None of these matters are settled or closed.Initially, I must point out the hypocrisy of your actions where you indicate that you have no conflict with regard to the Bennett Property Issues. You have indicated in your email yesterday that "you saw no conflict". The issue of conflict is not for you to judge otherwise, we would have leaders who are absolutely corrupt. You have stated "I am fully aware of my duties as a Board member.". Allow me to point out to you RCW 68.34. This statute lists your duties and responsibilities as a board member. You owe a duty to the homeowners which you breach and the board in it's entirety breaches when it allows conflicts to taint the decision making process.Linda you have a conflict with the Bennett property. You are married to Daryl Schindler. It was Daryl who was involved in the building of the offending wall that has taken over the easement. It was your husband who approached the Seven Bays Homeowners Association with the threat of a lawsuit over the issues with the Bennett Property and it was your husband and you who came to my house to discuss the Bennett Wall for two hours in early July. It was your husband who approached Paul Kochman after that meeting and stated that the board was opening up a can of worms. How do you think that you are not in conflict here.I further find it terribly hypocritical that you stood up in the July 14 community meeting demanding full disclosure of all the relationships of the people who were running for election, standing on the moral high ground of ethical conduct, and yet you fail to remove your self from the debate over the Bennett property. Further, it was improper of you and the board to change positions between July 21, 2007 and July 28, 2007 when I was not present. It was decided on July 21, 2007 that you would not be involved in the Bennett debate. The conflict was addressed and the issue was resolved. You don't have the opportunity to reopen that discussion a week later. You don't get to decide the following week that the conflict doesn't exist.Let us turn now to your statement that the Bennett matter is 'settled'. It is not settled. Very simply, the board does not have the legal authority to waive the easement trespass and I doubt that the community would be in favor of the board voluntarily giving up property which it has received no compensation for. Seven Bays was granted it's status because of the design of the property and the lots. In that approval process, the short plat process, easements were drawn. That short plat was approved by the County. The board does not have the legal authority to waive this easement or to 'accept' the wall. In doing so, the board has acted outside the scope of it's legal authority.Your statement that the 'wall was approved by three board members even had I not voted' is inaccurate. Margot Rach's vote was to deny the wall should it violate any safety, health, or welfare issues. Those easements were drawn for safety, health, and welfare issues as an operative component of the authority granted to the State and County to regulate land use. As the taking of the easement violates these rules, Margot did not vote in favor of the easement being 'accepted'. Indeed, she voted entirely opposite.Thus, there is no quorum because you are conflicted, and George Cordier and Rick Graf were the only two people who actually voted for the acceptance of the easement violation. The vote is illegal and improper. Your actions and the actions of the president, in permitting this conflict, have exposed the board and Seven Bays to severe legal liability. Setting aside the fact that is smacks of unilateral action on the part of the board when the previous board had already taken lawful and permissible steps to deal with the Bennet easement issue. Your rush to judgment, in view of the conflict, only smells of further corruption and hypocrisy. I dare say the citizens of Seven Bays should have serious questions about your conduct as a board member.Now, allow me to turn to your second proposition of yesterday that the Ripley matter is 'settled'. The Ripley matter is not settled. The previous board sent Mr. Ripley a letter stating that he needed to comply with the setback requirements as pertaining to Seven Bays. On July 21, 2007, this action was ratified by the new board. On July 28, 2007, the action was ratified again. Mr. Ripley's design is rejected until such time as it complies with the setback requirement.Yesterday, you advised me via the email listserv, that you, George Cordier, and Rick Graf had a discussion and you are for granting the variance. To quote with precision, you stated, "George, Rick and I are for the variance as we cannot see that allowing it will worsen accessibility at all and feel if there was a lawsuit, we would be hard pressed to justify it. Therefore, the Ripley property is approved."Now, let's take this apart for a moment. I don't recall a meeting being called, I don't recall there being a discussion about it on our local listserv, I don't recall Robert's Rules of Order being followed. What I see when I read that quote is, a unilateral and arbitrary action was taken, no notice was provided, and you decided on your own, without advice or discussion, that you can do as you please. Setting aside the fact that the board has no legal authority to waive any setback requirements, you, George, and Rick, do not have any authority to take actions on your own without notice to the rest of the board. Nor do you get to return to topics once they have been settled and voted upon.If you advised Mr. Ripley that he was permitted to build, I suggest you immediately remove that permission. The board is already on record that the Ripley application was denied until he can comply with the setback requirements. You acted unilaterally and without justification to override that decision. When Mr. Ripley is handed an enforcement action from the County or is sued by one of his neighbors, he is going to rely on the permission that you gave him. The homeowners association will be sued and I should think that the insurance policy will not choose to cover you under its E&O policy as you acted outside the scope of your authority.As this is going out to our local listserv, George, you bear a large amount of responsibility for these unilateral, arbitrary, and capricious actions. The homeowners elected you based upon your representations at the community meeting. The unethical conduct of the board members falls to you as you are the one who sanctions such behavior and not conducting yourself in an appropriate manner.Allow me to point out what you have accomplished by taking this unethical and inappropriate actions with regard to your decision of the past two days. (1) You have exposed yourselves to personal liability, (2) You have exposed the Seven Bays Homeowners Association to liability (I'm sure the members want another lawsuit to pay for and deal with), (3) You have sent a message to the homeowners that rules need not be followed, building packets and excavation permits can be disregarded. There are no rules to follow here at Seven Bays, you can build and do as you please because the board will take no action to enforce the rules and will even act outside the scope of it's own authority to facilitate illegal actions. I look forward to when homeowners come back and sue Seven Bays because they relied on the board's 'waiver' as a grant of authority to avoid the legal building requirements established by the State and County, (4) Should you enagag e in any enforcement action, the homeowner will have a selective enforcement argument because of the lackadaiscal and arbitrary actions of the board.I suggest you without delay reign yourselves in and answer immediately to the homeowners. I suggest you fully disclose your unethical behavior and withdraw yourself from consideration in these matters.I look forward to your prompt and immediate response from all of you.Jay S. JumpAirport Plat RepresentativeSeven Bays Board Member528 2nd Avenue SouthKent, WA 98032(253) 479-2041jumpj@jumplawgroup.com