Board
President Maynard Goldman stated (on 5/14/13) in his response to my (2nd)
request that my Board request (of 4/4/13) was not “approved”. My request was as
follows:
“We understand that going
door-to-door with community information is legal, but not always welcome, so
we'd like you to define the TIME, PLACE, and MANNER, for us to share
our viewpoints on community topics. We would like the ECA to announce
a meeting of community interest for the discussion of Direct Vote/Petition
interest that we will host.
What communication channels are you
willing to make available for opposing viewpoints so we don't bother
owners at home?”
Respectfully,
Geraldine Logan
As stated
in my Board request, I asked the Board to “define the TIME, PLACE, and MANNER,”
for community members to share their viewpoints on community topics.
“A meeting
of community interest for the discussion of Direct vote/petition interest that
we will host.”
The Board
minutes of 4/15/13, state: Mrs. Shulman
said Mrs. Logan’s letter specifically addresses a desire to have a group to
discuss direct voting, which should go through the Council.
My request above makes no mention of
any group. The
Board’s refusal was a denial of my
Member rights. The Board’s posted Minutes document misrepresents my
request. The requested meeting was OPEN to all Eastman members (simply hosted
by me).
The purpose of your
Eastman Community Association is stated on the first page of the Declaration of
Covenants and Restrictions.
It includes (in the fourth WHEREAS):
It includes (in the fourth WHEREAS):
“a) Construct or cause
to be constructed on the properties conveyed to the Association a planned
residential and recreational community with permanent parks, open spaces and other
common facilities FOR THE BENEFIT OF SUCH COMMUNITY and the health, safety AND
SOCIAL WELFARE OF THE OWNERS OF THE LOTS AND CONDOMINIUM UNITS located with in
such community.......”
The Eastman Community
Association is defined as all current members, now 1460 (approx.) paying
members.
• How does denying
a member or members of that community to host an open community meeting, serve
the social welfare of the Eastman community members?
• Should the Board of this community be
allowed to deny open discussion of
member interests on member-owned facilities without governance control of that
discussion?
This decision violates Marsh v Alabama, which guarantees the civil rights of residents of corporation owned communities.
ReplyDelete