HOA MAINTAINS PAT BRADLEY PATIO ROCK GARDEN

Picture taken on Dec 18, 2013. I’m sure everyone gets this kind of service maintaining the front of their patio! Still no word from board if I can get one of these. 

Bill "Pinky" Stolbach (Picture of the Pat's patio garden in July post below)

Pat Bradley's Response to Bill Stolbach

From: Patrick Bradley <pbinthedesert@yahoo.com>

Date: Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM
Subject: Response to Letters from Mr W Stolbach
To: "montereyopenforum@gmail.com" <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

Please post on your blog., as the two letters from Mr. Stolbach were.

Thank You

 Pat Bradley

______________________________________________________________________________

Pat Bradley's requested post is below. There were no anonymous emails sent to Mr. Bradley or anonymous posts made concerning this issue. Three emails were sent to Mr. Bradley all identified the sender as me Bill Stolbach. The attachment to Mr. Bradley's letter is merely the cart garage election results I don't believe it adds anything to the discussion however if requested I am sure Mr. Bradley will be happy to email a copy to you. His email address is listed above. 

Pat Bradley besides attacking me fails to answer the questions asked. Also the board has failed to provide any answers. The CC&R’s and specifically the Rules & Regulations prohibit the board from allowing common area to be used for personal purposes without the required vote of approval by homeowners. This is required by statute and a standing court order as a result from the Cart Garage lawsuit. The board is fully aware of the mandatory restrictions on the use of common area belonging to all homeowners. To add injury to injury Pat Bradley’s rock/flower patio garden under the new rules is maintained by Sunshine at our (HOA) expense.  

Pat Bradley and the board did not notify the homeowners that Sunhine’s owner and his son were indicted by the Riverside County DA for $1.5 million in six felony counts of workers' compensation insurance fraud as reported in the Desert Sun in April 2013. In June the board renewed the Sunshine contract. Apparently prior to this Pat Bradley made an arrangement with Sunshine to install his patio garden in June. He now says what he paid Sunshine for their services are none of our business. Interesting!

My question remains. How the hell do I get a great deal like Pat's?

Bill "Pinky" Stolbach

______________________________________________________________________________

Dear Homeowners,

I normally do not answer letters that attempt to cast aspersions on either my character or that of the other members of the volunteer Board. Normally when people like this are ignored they get bored and move on to something else. If you humor them with an answer, it makes them feel like they have accomplished something and it never quits.

A number of homeowners and a number of Board members, however, have urged me to respond to this onslaught.

So, here we go….

Dear Mr. Stolbach,

I have received two letters from you and one from the Anonymous Monterey Open Forum Blogger. Obviously, this is where you got your information from, and as usual in both cases, they are full of half truths, innuendos and faulty assertions. They show an absolute total lack of understanding of the rules and processes that we work under., 

Let me start with your first factual error, “Current rules do not allow boulders outside of patios, only the purposed rule changes would allow it.”

If you actually lived here, I would invite you to walk around our complex and count the number of homes that use boulders as accent in there landscape projects. This nothing new and it hardly began with me.

Next I will address the one factually correct statement that I found in your letter --” the HOA paid the cost of the tree removal.” You  are correct the HOA paid the cost of the tree removal in front of my patio. I enjoy trees and would never willingly cut one down. For your information, the roots of the tree were ripping up my unextended patio and the cracks had progressed up to the pad of the house. ( pictures available). The tree had to be removed at HOA expense as it would be for any other homeowner in a similar circumstance.

You are incorrect however in that the grading and sod were part of the landscape project. There are very few circumstances where grass seed is used in landscape renovations.

From your letter --“My understanding of the CC&Rs and the law is that any homeowner who wants to extend his patio or patio garden or for any reason wants to use common area for their own purposes must first fund a ballot measure to get homeowner approval.”

Your understanding of the CC&Rs regarding patio extensions and landscape renovations is obviously lacking, and your understanding of the law may well be much greater than mine, because fortunately I have never had any direct interaction with the legal system. For clarity, I refer you to the ballot measure approved by the Owners within MCCA in December, 2011 (see attached Certification from the independent Inspector of Elections) wherein the membership approved and granted each Unit Owner an exclusive use easement  for patio extensions (provided the Architectural Guidelines and related conditions are satisfied).

Your assertion, “The Board apparently has suspended the rules in order to accommodate and subsidize Board President Pat Bradley’s additional extension into the common area,” that any rules were suspended to accommodate or subsidize my patio extension is patently false. Both the Patio Extension Request and the Landscape Renovation Request were applied for and approved by MCCA through the standard process, accompanied by personal cheques to cover any and all fees.

Your accusation: “How much will the HOA subsidize the cost: that is : how much did the HOA pay Sunrise to remove the tree and re-landscape the whole area for Pat Bradley? What did Sunrise charge Pat Bradley to do this share and what was his share? “ The HOA does not subsidize homeowner renovation cost. If the HOA is doing a renovation next to a homeowners property and the homeowner would like some additional items within the project. The homeowner must pay for the add-ons. The entire cost, 100%, of the landscaping in front of my condo was paid for by my wife and I. As to the price, may I say bluntly, is none of your business. Sunshine is a contractor and I was their client. No special pricing was ever ask for nor offered.

Another thing you and the Anonymous Blogger have in common is that you fail to see any difference between a patio extension and a landscape project. A patio extension is hardscape and  as indicated above, it is the membership who approved the easements for a patio extension for each and every Unit Owner; thereafter once the patio extension plan is approved by MCCA, an Architectural Improvement Agreement  it is recorded against your Condo Unit. With a landscape project, you get the privilege of helping with the design and paying for it, to hopefully help beautify  your neighborhood, but you can never own it. It is and always will be Common Area .

As I stated in the beginning, answering these frivolous and mean-spirited charges, seems to be a wasted effort, because as we both know for you,  this is personal and no actual facts offered will deter you.

But, rest assured, although I have tried to answer your questions as best as I can ,  there will be no further correspondence for you from my end.

Pat Bradley

President HOA

ENTRY GATE BACKUP - Pass Checking at the Gate EMAIL to the BOARD

Dana, please forward the following note to the board for consideration.

Folks, I was down at MCC the other day, and discovered a new policy at the front gate effecting vacation and other short term renters that is totally unacceptable. As I understand it, the driver must physically hand the security officer the MCC access pass. First, the guard might be inside the guard-house so he would have to walk to the door and open the door. As for the driver, this involves reaching in front of the wheel, electronically rolling down the window, handing this pass to the guard who must physically "touch the pass" before handing said pass back to the driver. Incidentally, will the guard inspect the pass or merely "touch it"? If it is night time, will the guard then bring it inside to inspect the pass in a clear light?

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.....

As the vacation resident (or short term renter) will be forced to perform this action several times a day this will prove a major inconvenience and annoyance. Unfortunately, frustrations may frequently be taken out on the guards (not the board) at the gate who are just doing their job thus leading to a morale problem.

So, with reasonable civility, I am asking that this policy be reconsidered and rescinded at the next board meeting.

Let me point out some additional considerations. Not many folks down there in August, Sept, but some snowbirds start arriving in October and by season there is a significant influx of traffic. Want a nice big traffic jam, consider this! Given that Monterey Ave is a heavy traffic and high speed thoroughfare, given that there is a short light in front of the entrance to MCC, and given that this burdensome and unnecessary inspection at the border (sorry, I meant gate house) guess what the results will be.....nice long traffic lines on Monterey Ave backing up into the thru lanes (which will also effect not only full time residents but board members as well), people rushing to beat the light and, who knows, traffic accidents. So the situation will be elevated from one of inconvenience to a safety issue effecting the residents of Palm Desert and the surrounding communities. Plus as this policy might be considered a contributory factor, MCC could wind up being part of law suits. As we all know, in this litigious society everyone sues everyone.

So I request that this access policy be ended ASAP and that access revert to the previous (and long standing) method.

If not, I will bring this to the attention of the City of Palm Desert and its police department as a safety and traffic issue, and it will be on record,

whether they choose to act or not, for any potential lawsuits that may arise as a result of this poorly thought out policy.

Vic Asselin

326 Villena Way 

ENTRY GATE BACKUP - Pass Checking at the Gate

From: Vic Asselin <vicas1@southcoast-ca.com>
Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:20 AM
Subject: Pass Checking at the gate
To: montereyopenforum@gmail.com

Just back from a couple days at MCC. New wrinkle in the never ending saga of "fixing things". The board now requires anyone that accesses MCC who has a pass to physically take the pass out of the front area, pull the driver's window down and hand it to the guard so he/she can physically "touch the pass". Imagine the back-up in season. Have valid reason to believe that this is a Bradley inspired initiative. I have lots of other comments but does anyone feel that this is a good idea?
Vic     

PS: Don't yell at the guards, it's not their fault.

PLANT HEIGHT RULE

Just returned to Vancouver from MCC and it seems that there is a lot of concern regarding proposed rule changes resulting in the dispute between the "VIEW" faction and the "PRIVACY" faction in our complex.

Although we believe that privacy trumps view all owners concerns have to be considered.

Having said this we are dismayed that our HOA committee is considering allowing an 8 foot high by 4 feet distance from roof driplines to attempt to satisfy the privacy supporters. This combined with a reduction from 48 inches to 36 inches high after the 4 feet from driplines is not acceptable to us.

The 4 foot high limitation should be maintained to within 3 feet of the front patio wall....... or the 8 foot high allowance should be increased in length to 8 feet from the dripline instead of 4 feet.

Then we can all have a view without intruding into our neighbours privacy or gazing into their kitchens!

We believe that no trellis or other support system for an 8 foot high planting will be allowed so how will such plants/hedge be secured during the winter wind storms?

In our opinion our HOA leadership is opting for view without due consideration for privacy.

As one of our neighbours stated "why would my neighbour need to see into my patio or kitchen window"

Michael and Kristina
311 Durango

Michael & Kristina.  Most people are unaware of the Pat Bradley revised proposed PLANT HEIGHT RULE between patios. Apparently all the changes proposed at the July 24th BOD meeting will not be published until later in September. 

We agree with your comments and would add that measurements should be from the front edge of the patio (extended) since drip lines vary with each condo type which would impose on a 300 plan a different standard on each side of the patio. Particularly agree with your comment on trellis restriction. It does not make sense in areas where golf ball screens are not needed.

A new & better venue for homeowner  discussion is now available "Nextdoor Monterey Views".  You can learn more about what Nextdoor is by checking out their website at 

 https://nextdoor.com/

To join you must verify that you are a resident of Monterey which may be difficult since this is a second home.  

As an alternate way to join you may visit montereyviews.nextdoor.com/join use flyer code MTMDRQ 

If you have any problems email us here at montereyopenforum@gmail.com

THE BURNING BUSH

From: Bill Stolbach
Date: Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM
Subject: THE BURNING BUSH
To: "montereyopenforum@gmail.com" <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>, "Dana@alberrtmgt.com" <dana@alberrtmgt.com>, "pbinthedesert@yahoo.com" <pbinthedesert@yahoo.com>

That Bush you are referring to was given to me from some of the workers for helping out the guy who's daughter lost a leg and his other grandchild was also hurt. It was to thank me for the help we gave him through the golf tournament that so many people helped, and the 5,000.00 I gave him. I didn't even know who he was, but I knew he was hurting and had no money. I think you were the only one that I knew who wouldn't give a dime to help. You took it personally instead of using your heart, which I'm sure you have none. So if you want to take it out, do so, I don't need a reminder of someone who wishes me thanks for doing what I did. I checked with my next door neighbor and he likes it, and is ok with it.
 
You are a class act, I also have no respect for you and the way you handle yourself on the board, you are really getting a name for yourself,
 
Pinky
 
PS: I still haven't heard anything on my patio extension, love what you did, so would like to make it even bigger since there are no rules on this, thinking about going to the road. Please let me know ASAP so I can get the deal from Sunshine. So many people think they are doing a shitty job, and yet they did such a nice job on yours, so I guess they are really nice, and that was so nice of you to continue their contract. What a Guy

Patio Re:Extension to My Patio Extension Request For Information

From: Bill Stolbach <billstolbach@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Subject: Patio Re:Extension to My Patio Extension Request For Information
To: Monterey Homeowner <montereyhomeowners@gmail.com>, montereyopenforum@gmail.com
Cc: Dana Brown <Dana@albertmgt.com>

Dear Homeowners,

Isn't it about time we all wake up and see what is going on at Monterey. This thing with Pat Bradley is not fair to the homeowners. It is always something with this board, when is enough, ENOUGH? I looked at some of the homeowner replies when I first sent the e-mail request for information about Pat's extended patio, I told them I wanted one maybe up to the cart path, but have never got an answer from them, I wonder why?

Some of the homeowner replies were: thank GOD I'm out of there, or as Jacquie Rothe who lived on Serena simply said “Please take me off this list....we sold the condo...and glad we did!” or I really can't stand this place because of the H.O.A and the way they handle things, only what is good for them, they could care less what you want unless they would want the same thing.

When will we wake up and see that their reputation is crappy, when I said no more, and spoke to a few agents, they told me they don't like to recommend Monterey because of all the BAD PR they hear from others. This hurts business for the Golf Course, the less they have in membership, the less they make and they have to do cutbacks, which hurts the homeowners. It's like any business out there, profits down, we have to cut something.

What we need to do is elect 7 people who care; you folks are retired, why should someone tell you the color you have to use on your patio, go to BIG HORN and see how nice their patios are, all different colors, pretty soon the H.O.A. will tell you what drinking glass you can use. Where does it end with this board? They spent GOD knows how much defending  the cart garage lawsuit.  When I moved in I checked it out with 2 sources and both said the H.O.A. would lose and they did lose.  They could have saved us all probably close to a half a million. 

People want to put in better windows etc. and all they say is no, except if a board member or their friend wants it, check out the white window frames at 208 La Paz, how did that happen? I remember a board member having 3 umbrella's when all you could have was 2, so they changed the rule to 3 umbrellas and a friend of the board had RED umbrellas for years,  nothing ever happened to her. They bend or break the rules for themselves and their friends while using the rules to beat the rest us over the head shoulders.

We need to get a board that works with the people, whether they are full time or not, to let them enjoy their 2nd or first home. A board that will get rid of this attorney Guralnick, and get someone from the community who is or was an attorney to help find a new attorney. Let the homeowners be happy where they live instead of half of them complain all the time about the board, get rid of all the BS in the dopey rules that only hurts residents, get someone who cares for the people and the job doesn't go to their head. Not that hard to find those people.

By this email I again request the board respond to my July 23 request for information.
Bill “Pinky” Stolbach

TIME WARNER CABLE

From: gene lewis <genelewis246@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 5:52 PM
Subject: Time Warner Cable
To: Monterey Open Forum <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

As we are all aware, Time Warner's actions have greatly reduced our television viewing choices.  NBC local, NBC sports LA, and according to this mornings Sun, paper, there will also be a problem with CBS LA.   Has anyone talked with the HOA regarding our options?  We are presently paying a premium price for a limited access to viewing options.  Any ideas?  Gene Lewis, 246 SBC  760 346 9977.

July 24, 2013 Comments on Board PROPOSED RULE CHANGES Working Meeting

The Board PROPOSED RULE CHANGES Working Meeting met today (July 24th)  at the HOA office.  
Request those homeowners in attendance provide their comments on the meeting and suggestions on going forward. 

Bill Stolbach E-Mail to the Board

From: Bill Stolbach [mailto:billstolbach@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 5:45 PM
To: montereyhomeowners@gmail.com

Subject:  Board President

To: Board of Directors, Monterey Open Forum , Monterey Homeowners

From: Bill "Pinky" Stolbach

CC: Dana Brown

Subject: Patio Extension to My Patio Extension Request For Information

My neighbor Board President Pat Bradley recently (May-June) extended his existing walled/fenced in patio the legally allowed 4 feet or so. He then extended it out an additional 4 feet or so  into the common area to construct a boulder garden as can be seen in the photo below. 
(Current rules do not allow boulders outside patios only the proposed changes would allow this). 

I understand the HOA paid the cost to remove a tree  and paid to grade and sod (not seed) the 
surrounding area again as can be seen in the photo below. 
(The CC&R’s require the homeowner to  pay all costs).

My understanding of the CC&R's & the law is that any homeowner who wants to extend his patio or patio garden or for any reason wants to use common area for their own purposes must first fund a ballot measure (about $2,000+) to get a homeowner approval.

Since the Board apparently has suspended the rules in order to accommodate and subsidize Board President Pat Bradly's additional extension into the common area;
I would like to get in on this sweetheart deal. 

Therefore this is a formal preliminary request to duplicate and add this garden extension into the common area to my fully extended patio at 322 S. Sierra Madre.   A standard application will be submitted when the below requested extension information is received. Others also may want to extend out from their extended patios a similar amount of common area for larger rose, cacti or other desert plant 
gardens, think of the possibilities.

But first I and others need to know from the Board how far out into the common area the Board is approving?  ( I was thinking maybe up to the golf path )
How much will the HOA subsidize the cost; that is: how much did the HOA pay Sunrise to remove the tree and re-landscape the whole area for Pat Bradley?  What did Sunrise charge Pat Bradley 
to do this share and what was his share?

I and others eagerly await your reply.  

Sincerely,

Bill "Pinky" Stobach 

  

322 Sierra Madre S

Palm Desert, CA

_____________________________________________________________________

From: Dale Gribow <dale@dalegribowlaw.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:50 PM
Subject: RE: FW: Board President
To: Bill Stolbach, montereyhomeowners@gmail.com

IF this is true it is shameful................and probably illegal in more way than one. 
However i suspect he complied with all the rules.

Let's give him a chance to respond and not be quick to judge

.

Please note our new address, phone, fax number and email below:

Dale S. Gribow,    Attorney at Law
74-923 Highway 111 # 206, Indian Wells, CA 92210
PH: 760-837-7500  Fax: 760 837 7502dale@dalegribowlaw.com

JULY 18, 2013 BOARD MEETING COMMENTS ON RULE CHANGES & OTHER ISSUES

MONTEREY OPEN FORM – July 18^th Board Meeting - QUICK UPDATE

The meeting room was full of homeowners estimated at about 75+ homeowners probably a record for a summer meeting or any regular monthly meeting. President Bradley opened the meeting with a prepared statement addressing the Proposed Rule Changes. His statement it was said will be published to all homeowners. After which he opened the meeting for an Open Forum for homeowners to comment on Rules Changes only.  Homeowner comments will not be published. 

Therefore we ask all homeowners who attended the meeting to email to montereyopenforum@gmail.com their comments, questions and/or their general impression of the meeting and any or all information presented by homeowners and the board.  These homeowner emails will be posted on the Monterey Open Forum Blog for all to see and comment on, particular those who were unable to attend. 

In summary the board has decided to:

• Extend the Proposed Rule Change approval to the Nov 21, 2013 Board meeting.
• Hold a Town Meeting in October.
• Board will attempt to modify some of these rules before resubmitting them to the homeowners 30 days prior to Nov.21^st.
• The HOA website will not be activated for homeowner comments/questions to the board on the Proposed Rule Changes or any other subject.
• The website survey capability may or may not be used.

Other items presented by the board:

• The contract with Albert has been extended to December 2013. It was due to expire on July 1, 2013
• The contract with Sunshine was renewed for a year. This announcement was received with resounding BOOs from the homeowners. The OPEN FORUM at the end of the 2 hour meeting was primarily an abuse fest of the quality ( or rather lack of) of Sunshine work and the poor state of landscaping around homeowner’s condos.

Our compliments to you who contributed your ideas and Rule Changes comments, as well as voted on the Blog surveys.  It was our hope the board would implement the HOA website MEMBERS FORUM (MESSAGE BOARD) and survey function both of which are a more capable and sophisticated than this FORUM. But that is not to be.

_____________________________________________________________________

From: Judy Saccente <judyyank45@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Subject: Comments on Today's Meetings
To: "montereyopenforum@gmail.com" <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

I was happy to see such a large turnout by homeowners at today's meeting.  If we can continue to get this level of interest and involvement we have a real chance of impacting the Board's ability to impose arbitrary rules that effect us all in some way.

While encouraged by the Board's apparent willingness to revisit the proposed rule changes and hold a town hall to get homeowner input before making final decisions, we should not let our guard down or become complacent.  There is no guarantee that the new proposal will differ much from the original.  And we still have not been given much explanation for most of the proposed changes, particularly with regard to patio furniture colors

_______________________________________________________ 

From: LLOYD <suite-a@earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Many Thanks
To: montereyopenforum@gmail.com

Many thanks to all who worked so hard to get membership responses the majority of which were against the proposed changes. Again I suggest that prior to adopting rule changes or even considering them that OUR BOARD, should first poll the membership on the issue of needed changes.  Then armed with responses publish those responses and see to gaining a consensus.  With consensus then for the first time Proposed Rules should be formulated for a HOA Vote.  In this way the anger, as seen once again, can be avoided.

Lloyd Robinson

329 Sierra Madre South

cell 310 666 4333

 ________________________________________________________

From: Dale Gribow <dale@dalegribowlaw.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM
Subject: my .02
To: montereyopenforum@gmail.com, montereyhomeowners@gmail.com, dana@albertmgt.com

The Homeowners and Board should both consider consulting with a Real Estate Attorney that specializes in HOA matters…BEFORE the next vote to learn of the Homeowners rights AND the HO board’s fiduciary obligations. I would strongly suggest they bring a copy of the homeowner’s papers for the attorney to review.

The board has a difficult job to do and every time something like this has come up in the past I have asked myself why I have been on 50 boards. This happens with all boards. It is a thankless job and they are underappreciated. They are doing the job because we do not want to step up to the plate. We should all be appreciative of what they are doing and THANK THEM for what is right not just comment on what is wrong in our opinion.

It is possible they have not thought through these issues thoroughly. There is no excuse for scheduling a vote in the summer for any entity in the desert. They, just like congress, have to answers to its constituents. In this case it is the HO. The Monterey BOD has a clear fiduciary duty. Whether what they are proposing was right or wrong is not the main issue. The setting up of a vote during the summer would be my main gripe. That action causes HO to lose confidence in THEIR board.

In addition the HO and Board should want to avoid any possible litigation which would take money away from other matters that are more pressing. I too have felt like this was becoming a Gestapo state with the security stopping one from going over 20 mph. I lived at Bighorn for 10 years and Indian Ridge for 10 years and never had any contact with the security and HOA. I have been here 7 months and already see things that are probably not handled as delicately as they should.

I am not a HOA attorney but would be glad to suggest several names to you to both groups. However the Albert Group knows what they are doing and if the BOD has not run this by them maybe they should.

NEW CHANGE OF ADDRESS

DALE GRIBOW, Attorney at Law 74-923 Hwy 111 # 206, Indian Wells  CA 92210  760 837-7500  Fax: 760 837 7502 

___________________________________________________________________

From: gene lewis <genelewis246@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM
Subject: Re: I am underrepresented in voting on the blog
To: Monterey Open Forum <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

My name is Gene Lewis, and I live at 246 SBC.  I have owned my condo since April, 2001. ( This should satisfy Mr. Bradleys, concern for accountability)

I attended yesterdays meeting and was most surprised at the home owner turnout.  This reflects the value of OPEN COMMUNICATION.  If  Albert Management will not function in the Sunshine ( not sunshine landscaping) then we,  the home owners must provide a forum that keeps us informed.  I am not the most computer literate person; however, I will do anything that will help to provide open communications.  Let me know.

My comments regarding the meeting:

     1.  The board had the look of a Deer in the headlights of a car, when they saw the turn-out.  Mr. Bradley, spend most of his opening remarks back tracking, and distancing himself from the proposed actions of the board.  When it came to the golf path, his comment was "we put this in at the request of Golf course mgt."  I found his response to be indicative of his lack of caring for the home owners benefits.
  

     2.  Once Mr. Bradley, saw the turn-out, he arbitrarily picked November, as the timing of the vote.  Why November?  Why didn't he ask for some suggestions from the home owners?   Why not January, or February, when the majority of home owners are here?

     3.  Regardless of your opinion of Jack Mulhil, he had a very valid point with regards to the HOA Website.  It cost the home owners approx. $7.0, and $90.00 p/m, and the management group and HOA, refuse to use it.  Why?  Is it that they don't care, or is it that keeping us in the dark about issues makes their governess easier. 

     4.  Albert Management, has to GO.  Dana, does not step out of her office to see what is going on with the contractors that they have hired, and based on the groups comments yesterday, no one is happy with Sunshine Landscaping, the Pool Cleaning people, or our own service people.   Sunshine, is a train wreck, and Albert Mgt. knows it because they have been deluged with complaints since day one.  Pool cleanliness is a simple issue to correct, if she would pay attention, or care.  I wonder if the pool contractors are required to give mgt. a daily report of what pools have been serviced by them, and then have our people periodically check on each vendor.  Pool lights are a NO Brainer.  Every evening  when walking my dog, I see security stopping at pools, and many times getting out of their truck and going on the pool deck.  Burned out lights should be noted by them, and turned into the mgt. office daily.Seems simple doesn't it?  It just takes someone who cares.  Again, it is not Albert Mgt. 

     5.  I don't know if you noticed, many in attendance did.  Every time someone went to the microphone to speak, Dana, would sneer, or make condescending looks, as much as to say, you don't know what you are talking about.  I found her actions to be most unprofessional, and her attitude to be disrespectful.  This is the Managements representative?  Poor Choice.

In conclusion:

     I feel very strongly that Albert Mgt. is a serious part of our problem, and we need to act now to insure that they are not rehired.

     I don't know what can be done regarding Sunshine Landscape for another year, other than meeting with their senior management, to discuss ways to resolve their poor performance.  I didn't see anyone from Albert Mgt. saying they would try and get these issues resolved.

     We need to stay vigilant to the actions of the HOA board with regards to the proposed changes, and continue to send peoples concerns to them, as well as continue to communicate amongst ourselves.  I believe that common sense can and will play out; however, everyone must have their voices heard.

Thank you for this opportunity,

Gene A. Lewis
________________________________________________________________

From: Kay Van Zandt <kvz@msn.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Montery Open Forum Blog
To: Monterey Open Forum <montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

I used the blog message board to post a message on Friday.  But when I went in to check other people's comments on the board meeting this afternoon, my message wasn't there.  I am not sure why--perhaps I did something wrong or maybe there are times when the messages don't upload until later.  But I have since read some of the other messages on the blog and would prefer to have that one rescinded and replaces with the one below, if you can do that. 

Thanks.

Kay VZ

================

Unfortunately I was unable to attend the board meeting on Thursday, 7/18, so I appreciated reading the summaries. I will also continue to watch this blog for additional comments. 

I was very pleased to read how many homeowners attended the meeting and that there were some "interesting" interactions between the board, Albert Management, and the homeowners.  I suspect that without this blog raising homeowner awareness and the ability to share ideas, the meeting and rule changes would have gone into effect unopposed, just as the board had no doubt expected and wanted.  And even though a November date has been established for their proposed rules changes vote I did not get any sense from what I have read thus far that the board intends to do it any differently this time.  Will they provide a summary of every proposed change, why it is believed necessary, the financial and/or operational impact(s) of each change?  Will they be offering a line-item vote or another "all or nothing" yes or no vote?

The board seems to be taking a very hard position against reopening the homeowner forum, and true to form offered no substantive reasons for denying homeowners that access to explore and share ideas.  Perhaps they are afraid, as evidenced by homeowner rebellion Thursday, that it will result in more direct homeowner oversight of their actions, and a level of activism in having a say in how the board conducts our business.  As pointed out by other homeowners, being on the board is no easy task. But rather than taking the path of cooperation and seeking better communications with and support of the homeowners, the board appears more interested in furthering their isolation. This most recent round of homeowner rebellion should be sending a clear message to everyone that things must change; all homeowners must have the information needed to make informed decisions on proposed board actions and at a time when the majority of homeowners are here.

 I hope that every homeowner will enroll and participate in this blog and put pressure on the board to reactivate the official message board.  It is the ideal starting point for implementing a better method of communications with and among homeowners that is so sorely needed.  How much better for the board to get word to the homeowners in a timely fashion, receive feedback, and see/understand any major resistances and make appropriate corrections BEFORE we have to show up en mass to protest what otherwise appear arbitrary and capricious rule changes. 

Kay Van Zandt

Homeowner

__________________________________________________

From: Roberta Monahan <damon1776@aol.com>
Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 6:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Monterey Open Forum
To: "Montereyopenforum@gmail.com" <Montereyopenforum@gmail.com>

Attention all homeowners:

Can you get the word out about as many as possible attending the newly scheduled meeting Wed July 24 10:00 am to work on the proposed HOA Rules -- I would love as many as possible to attend.  This is an open meeting and  ALL are welcome!  It is imperative that we don't drop the ball now and try build consensus so that we can have more acceptable changes which meet all of our approval, yet address the Board's issues with the concerns raised.   Thanks for all of you who attended last Thursday's meeting but we REALLY need your help now!  

Bobbi Monahan  925 858-6752     Sent from my iPhone

_________________________________________________________