Held January 30, 2012.
As a matter of a recap, the enthusiasm form the membership definitely was impactful on the Board. This was the best meeting the Members have had in years.
Rob Novo tabled an objection from the start (in effect, a motion that the meeting itself was “out of order”) due to the erroneous notification that the Board mailed (actually Dan Rosen stuffed the notices in Member mailboxes on Thursday Jan 19th). The Board tried to change this notice just a few hours before the Annual General Membership (AGM) meeting. This was no small change attempted. The Board said the three Board positions that were up for election were incorrect and in retrospect, it was two other Trustee positions.
The Board then went over the financials with the Members. Over the last few years we have typically had five or so Members delinquent and in various stages of collection process and legal entanglements with the Board. The Board said that only two Members were currently in arrears. We had once again an issue with the way the Board reports the financials. The Board provides the Membership financials in “cash basis” which is not the way a corporation presents its financials to its owners (shareholders). That should be what is known as “accrual accounting”. The latter provides a truer picture of the financial health of an organization. The Board’s balance sheet also erroneously inputs some accrual terms but not others. It can be at the very least a bit confusing, but its apparent what Treasurer Debby Strott is attempting to do.
The discussion then moved onto the subject of the Bradford Tree damage. Tom Maloney, Sec to the Board of Trustees, started off the discussion by saying the Board had determined it had no standing to help out individual Members on this matter. He also stated that Township Administrator John Lovell said the Township wasn’t going to help. There was some discussion about whether or not there was an agreement between the MLEHOA developer and the Township whereby the Township requested the developer install the Bradford Trees in exchange the Township agreed to take care of them. However, no one was sure of this nor seen any such documented agreement. There was talk of visiting municipal hall to ask for the MLEHOA deed and planning documents. I asked the Board a simple question if anyone had a general idea of the total damage from the storm on the MLEHOA trees. There were guesses of 40 at a minimum to over 100. Amy stated that the neighborhoods character has been negatively affected and thus the MLEHOA might consider participating. Thus the topic then moved to Amy and Rob working together to do the following:
Township Obligations
1. Though the Township manager, according to Tom Maloney, said the Township “was no longer involved in the tree business”, that may or may not be true. It is really not relevant if the Township has the funds budgeted. What matters is DOES such an agreement exist? If so, then it should be brought to the attention of the Township governing council. How they pay for their obligations is not our concern. (“we don’t have money budgeted for that” is a common excuse used by govt officials. It’s irrelevant but many times effective as people just go away upon hearing this. Simply put, people, corporations and governments aren't excused from paying their obligations because "they don't have the money".)
MLEHOA Action
2. Amy said she would take an inventory of the damage. I have asked Michael Seeley of “Seeley Landscaping” to contact Amy and Rob. He is familiar with the damage to our neighborhood and has already cleaned up our common areas. His telephone # is 973 722 4007 and his email is skibumhb@optonline.net).
3. The meeting closed this subject with a date of March 22nd to hold a MLEHOA Special Meeting to discuss this matter.
Sec. Tom Maloney then said the last matter we have is the election. At this point, I objected and asked why the MLEHOA did not have a 2011 Annual Membership meeting. Inexcusably, the Board generally, Tom Maloney and Dan Rosen said they did not know. Other Board members murmured something about scheduling conflicts or the like. I then said that since the MLEHOA did not have a AGM in 2011 it has created a problem for the Association in terms of elections. Our Bylaws require AGMs and our Trustees to serve two year terms. Our Bylaws also stipulate that no more than three Trustees are to be elected in a calendar year. Original Bylawys say no more than two Trustees can be elected in any given calendar year. Given no AGM in the last calendar year, we did not elect anyone. Board members Tom Maloney and Ian Kadden's terms both expired on October 28, 2011. Tom then asked me if we had a AGM in January of 2012 and then another one in December of 2013 would that be allowed. I answered “yes” as the calendar requirement would be met. Ian Kadden asked me what do I think the Association should do. I said, if the Association is to follow its own rules (Bylaws) both Tom and Ian are no longer Board members. I said we should hold the elections to fill the spots by the expiring 2010-2012 terms of Board members Dan Rosen, Vin Papalia and Debby Strott and leave the other two vacant. The Board seemed to be unprepared to discuss why 1) They failed to schedule a required Annual Membership meeting in 2011 and 2) how to fix their self-inflicted election problem.
At that point the idea was voiced that we might want to delay the election for six weeks or so. Dan said we can’t vote for Trustees in anything other than AGMs. I told him this isn’t true and thus it appears the elections will occur in some manner at the March 22nd Member Special “Tree meeting”. Note that "Special meetings", just like AGMs have specific notification requirements. It is the obligation and duty of the Board to inform the Membership of this special meeting.
At this point, the Meeting deteriorated somewhat as Ian started to voice his frustration with how the Board members work hard and the general Membership “doesn’t care.” He then said how no one complained to the Board about the fact they didn’t hold a AGM last year. I and Rob both objected to that assertion. Communication was sent to the Board in numerous ways not the least of which was Rob and myself speaking to Board member Vin Papalia. Vin failed to answer what, if any, actions he took when Rob and myself asked him about the Annual Membership meeting and was the Board planning on holding it in 2011. I also asked Board member Debby Strott in October about when was the Board going to schedule the 2011 Annual Membership meeting. I then asked Ian by his logic, he needs to tell me “what part of our Bylaws is he and the Board going to ignore because in his (or the Board's) opinion the Membership is apathetic?” He didn’t answer. I then stated it is fundamental corporate governance to hold AGMs and proper elections and the fiduciary obligations of the Board should not only occur when the Members “speak up”. Think about the potential for abuse if Ian’s argument were to hold sway. Which Board Member would have the monarchial power to decide what aspects of the Bylaws the Board wanted to follow and what stipulations it didn’t want to follow. Abuse would be assured....more accurately, continued abuse of our Bylaws would certainly occur.
We also discussed the webpage where various member (Rob, Lance and myself) voiced objection to the fact that the webpage hadn’t been updated in almost three years. In fact, just hours before the meeting, the Minutes of the 2010 AGM were posted by Dan Rosen – two years later after the meeting. Dan Rosen has experience with webpages. His company's, DRD Systems Inc., webpage is http://www.drdsystems.com/. Lance, Rob and myself agreed to help manage the webpage. Dan Rosen agreed to provide the administrator log-in information to Rob in order our webpage can more properly be maintained. Unfortunately, I have just learned that Dan Rosen has changed his mind and wants to continue to control our webpage himself and has decided by himself not to provide the log-in information to Rob.
Atmosphere of the Board’s attitude towards governance is simply self-evident. While, it is no question that being a volunteer is hard work. It is also no question that there is simply a “right” and “wrong” way to operate. For example, it is my understanding that the 2011 AGM didn’t occur because all five of the Board members couldn’t agree on a date. I told them that AGMs are NOT for the benefit of the Board members but the general membership at large. In fact, all five Board members do not have to attend AGMs. I suggested they set a date early in the year, say January, to announce to the Association the AGM would occur on the “first Monday in December”.
I will leave it to everyone’s own opinion why Ian and the other Members seemingly so tired of the work, wish to remain on the Board but when we left the Board was huddled together going over the Bylaws with Tom.
I disagree with the Board's attitude that the Members "don't care". In my interaction with the Members, they do. Nor do I think it is proper behavior for the Board to act without regard to our Bylaws because of their erroneous opinion.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Monday, March 22, 2010
Mendham Lake Estate Homeowners Association Dam and Lake Proposal and Report
Mendham Lake Estate Homeowners Association
Dam and Lake
Proposal and Report
Submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MLEHOA
by Kevin Melly
November 13, 2009
Introduction
As you know during the subsequent week following the MLEHOA annual membership meeting on October 28, 2009 I have looked into the various topics raised as they pertain to the Lake, Dam and surrounding common areas. The experts and their contact information are provided in Section 1.0 of this Report.
What follows is my synopsis from my research. I should state from the onset that most of what is contained in this Report was not conducted with the expressed approval of the Board but by my own initiative. That being said, the Report can be added –if the Board so decides, on an official approved after- the- fact basis or simply record it for informational purposes only. To obtain formal consultation –including a presentation to the Board, the Association would have to hire the engineer. The landscape designer contractor and the engineer from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (D.E.P.) consultation would be without charge.
Finally, as I have been asked by some members of the Association about this research, I respectfully request that the Board of Trustees submit this Report into the official record of the Association and make available on the MLEHOA website (if you need help in how to go about uploading it to the website, just let me know) I will discuss the differences in the administrative section of the Dam Condition Report, section 1(A).
Outline
1.0 Contact information
2.0 Dam Condition Report
a. Administrative
b. Physical
3.0 Lake Condition Report
4.0 Remediation Possibilities and Work Proposals
5.0 Reference Material and Estimates
1.0 Contact Information
A) Mr. Dewey Lima
Principal Engineer
Bureau of Dam Safety & Flood Control
NJDEP
501 East State Street (1st floor)
P.O. Box 419
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 984-0859
Fax: (609) 984-1908
E-mail: Dewey.Lima@dep.state.nj.us
Dam Safety Website http://www.state.nj.us/dep/damsafety/
B) Mr. David Rosenblatt,
Administrator
Office of Engineering & Construction
NJDEP
P.O. BOX 419
Trenton NJ 08625-0419
(609) 292-9236
C) Mr. Michael Seeley
Seeley Landscape
235 Riverside Dr. West
Denville NJ 07834
(973) 722 4007
C) Messrs Matthew Fox and Paul Fox
Canger Engineering Inc.
6-20 Plaza Rd.
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-3113
Tel: (201) 796-2776
Fax: (201) 796 8383
2.0 Dam Condition Report
The Cifrese Dam
Before I get into the condition of the Dam as I observed, I think I should point out first what I learned from the Mr. Dewey Lima, Principal Engineer with the Bureau of Dam Safety & Flood Control, NJDEP.
A) Administrative Condition
He informed me that the Cifrese Dam is a “Level Three” or “Low Hazard Dam”. He sent to me the NJDEP Dam Safety Section Report on the Cifrese Lake Dam (NJ Dam File No. 25-130) The last inspection of the Dam occurred on 12/6/01. NJ Law What the report shows and he and I discussed it that NJ law requires dam inspections.
The type of inspection is broken down by “regular”, “informal” and “formal”.
The formal and regular inspections must be conducted by a licensed private engineer. The required report must then be submitted to the NJDEP within 30 days of the completion of the report. These inspections have to be conducted every four years. The Cifrese Dam should have received at least two formal or regular inspections since 2001. According to the NJDEP, the Dam should have received a formal inspection in 2005 and 2009.
The informal inspection (this is the one I conducted) can be performed by the dam owner or operator and the Report – this Report if the Board so chooses, “on Condition shall be part of the owner’s or operator’s permanent file, unless requested by the Department, Reports shall not be submitted to the NJDEP.” I would suggest, but it’s entirely up to the Association, that this Report be entered into the Association’s official record, especially given no formal inspection has been conducted in eight years. For completeness of this Report, I would like to review the engineering design plans and appurtenance of the dam (both required even for informal inspections.)
I want to restate that I was not given authority by the Board to conduct this inspection of the Dam and therefore it should be considered that I did this on my own initiative. IF the Board deems so, then it is up to the Board of Trustees representing the interests of the Association to consider this Report for either general research or retrospective purposes of meeting informal dam inspection purposes.
B) Physical Condition
As stated previously, the State does require both for informal inspections. If the Board does decide to use this Report, then I will submit as an addendum to this Report a state required report for all Dam inspections “Visual Inspection Checklist” (See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/vicguid2.pdf; pgs 5-17).
The observations were made in the week of Oct 31, 2009 to November 7, 2009. What I observed was relatively minor water and wind erosion on the surface of the dam.
i) Some minor movement of the rail ties and paver stones of a few inches.
ii) Also observed was a ground-hog hole in the front face “upslope” side of the dam approximately 30 ft from the eastern side of the dam.
iii) There was some brush that tall grass that needs to be cut on the downward slope of the dam.
3.0 Lake Condition Report
The Cifrese Lake
Summary:
On November 3, 2007, engineer from Canger Engineering walked in and around the common area known as Cifrese Lake (“Lake”), Randolph Lot No._________, Morris County, New Jersey.
The Lake is the largest of four common areas under owned by the corporation known as “Mendham Lake Estates Property Association.” This corporation in turn has a board of trustees whose responsibility, it is to care for the common areas.
The Association comprises 49 homes and four common areas all in the Township Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey.
The Lake approximately 13 acres in size and is primarily fed via a creek known as “Dawson Creek” that runs into the northeastern corner of the Lake. There is also a storm run-off that is in the northeast corner. However, Dawson Creek provides all, non-direct precipitation, water to the Lake. The Lake has a damn built of concrete, earth and rock located at the southern end of the lake.
Classification of lakes condition
Lake water quality is most commonly assessed by reference to trophic categories under a modified version of the O.E.C.D. scheme, 1982 by setting parameters for the annual average values for total phosphorous, chlorophyll and water transparency-to assess the level of eutrophication and its effects.
Information on lakes is derived mainly from investigations carried out by the Local Authorities, the EPA and the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards.
The analysis of Canger Engineering did not involve the quality of the water or lack thereof. The analysis was of the visible characteristics of the Lake and Dawson Creek.
Visible Characteristics of the Lake
The Lake is experiencing significant changes The changes show obvious sizeable amounts of organic material that are clogging up the mouth of Dawson Creek and the storm drain runoff from Kingsbrook Ct. and deposited large amounts of sediment into the Lake itself. This sentiment, if not dealt with, will lead to the Lake going through detrimental appreciable changes. The Lake will decrease in size as sentiment continues to accumulate. Weeds will continue to grow on the sentiment thus pushing the northern end of the Lake – the shallowest end, farther and farther south.
Recommended Treatment
An abatement program where the Lake is cleaned of weeds and other plant life that is choking the water flow from Dawson Creek is highly recommended. Also a sentiment basin might be useful in combination with Dawson Creek being corrected so that it no longer churns up so much sentiment into the Lake. This Dawson Creek correction could include cleaning fallen trees, garbage and other weeds. Putting down rocks to prevent churning the Creek’s bottom would be very useful.
4.0 Remediation Possibilities and Work Proposals
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recommends the clean-up of these rivers and encourages the programs with subsidized low-interest loans. These loans are under the D.E..P Office of Engineering and Construction pursuant to the Dam, Lake, Stream, Flood Control, Water Resources, Water Resources and Wastewater Treatment Project Bond Act of 2003 (N.J.A.C 7:24A-1.1). The loans are by law not to exceed two percent over 20yrs."[1] encourages lake maintenance by dredging and restoration by the Bond Act of 2003 means the removal of sand, silt, mud, sediment, rocks, stumps, vegetation, algae blooms and other general abatement and control of pollution of lakes caused by storm-water runoff, soil erosion, etc.
This law was enacted specifically for abatement of the problems seen at Cifrese Lake as the Lake is experiencing almost all of the above.
[1] Source David Rosenblatt, Administrator New Jersey Dept of Environment Protection Office of Engineering & Construction PO BOX 419 Trenton NJ 08625-0419 (609) 292-9236. http://www.nj.gov/dep/ec/lake_loan_app.pdf
6.0 Reference Material and Estimates
Definition: “ALCA” refers to “Any Lake Community Association”
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/dsscsf.pdf
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/o&mexam.pdf
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/o&mexam.pdf
Dam and Lake
Proposal and Report
Submitted to the Board of Trustees of the MLEHOA
by Kevin Melly
November 13, 2009
Introduction
As you know during the subsequent week following the MLEHOA annual membership meeting on October 28, 2009 I have looked into the various topics raised as they pertain to the Lake, Dam and surrounding common areas. The experts and their contact information are provided in Section 1.0 of this Report.
What follows is my synopsis from my research. I should state from the onset that most of what is contained in this Report was not conducted with the expressed approval of the Board but by my own initiative. That being said, the Report can be added –if the Board so decides, on an official approved after- the- fact basis or simply record it for informational purposes only. To obtain formal consultation –including a presentation to the Board, the Association would have to hire the engineer. The landscape designer contractor and the engineer from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (D.E.P.) consultation would be without charge.
Finally, as I have been asked by some members of the Association about this research, I respectfully request that the Board of Trustees submit this Report into the official record of the Association and make available on the MLEHOA website (if you need help in how to go about uploading it to the website, just let me know) I will discuss the differences in the administrative section of the Dam Condition Report, section 1(A).
Outline
1.0 Contact information
2.0 Dam Condition Report
a. Administrative
b. Physical
3.0 Lake Condition Report
4.0 Remediation Possibilities and Work Proposals
5.0 Reference Material and Estimates
1.0 Contact Information
A) Mr. Dewey Lima
Principal Engineer
Bureau of Dam Safety & Flood Control
NJDEP
501 East State Street (1st floor)
P.O. Box 419
Trenton, NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 984-0859
Fax: (609) 984-1908
E-mail: Dewey.Lima@dep.state.nj.us
Dam Safety Website http://www.state.nj.us/dep/damsafety/
B) Mr. David Rosenblatt,
Administrator
Office of Engineering & Construction
NJDEP
P.O. BOX 419
Trenton NJ 08625-0419
(609) 292-9236
C) Mr. Michael Seeley
Seeley Landscape
235 Riverside Dr. West
Denville NJ 07834
(973) 722 4007
C) Messrs Matthew Fox and Paul Fox
Canger Engineering Inc.
6-20 Plaza Rd.
Fair Lawn, NJ 07410-3113
Tel: (201) 796-2776
Fax: (201) 796 8383
2.0 Dam Condition Report
The Cifrese Dam
Before I get into the condition of the Dam as I observed, I think I should point out first what I learned from the Mr. Dewey Lima, Principal Engineer with the Bureau of Dam Safety & Flood Control, NJDEP.
A) Administrative Condition
He informed me that the Cifrese Dam is a “Level Three” or “Low Hazard Dam”. He sent to me the NJDEP Dam Safety Section Report on the Cifrese Lake Dam (NJ Dam File No. 25-130) The last inspection of the Dam occurred on 12/6/01. NJ Law What the report shows and he and I discussed it that NJ law requires dam inspections.
The type of inspection is broken down by “regular”, “informal” and “formal”.
The formal and regular inspections must be conducted by a licensed private engineer. The required report must then be submitted to the NJDEP within 30 days of the completion of the report. These inspections have to be conducted every four years. The Cifrese Dam should have received at least two formal or regular inspections since 2001. According to the NJDEP, the Dam should have received a formal inspection in 2005 and 2009.
The informal inspection (this is the one I conducted) can be performed by the dam owner or operator and the Report – this Report if the Board so chooses, “on Condition shall be part of the owner’s or operator’s permanent file, unless requested by the Department, Reports shall not be submitted to the NJDEP.” I would suggest, but it’s entirely up to the Association, that this Report be entered into the Association’s official record, especially given no formal inspection has been conducted in eight years. For completeness of this Report, I would like to review the engineering design plans and appurtenance of the dam (both required even for informal inspections.)
I want to restate that I was not given authority by the Board to conduct this inspection of the Dam and therefore it should be considered that I did this on my own initiative. IF the Board deems so, then it is up to the Board of Trustees representing the interests of the Association to consider this Report for either general research or retrospective purposes of meeting informal dam inspection purposes.
B) Physical Condition
As stated previously, the State does require both for informal inspections. If the Board does decide to use this Report, then I will submit as an addendum to this Report a state required report for all Dam inspections “Visual Inspection Checklist” (See: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/vicguid2.pdf; pgs 5-17).
The observations were made in the week of Oct 31, 2009 to November 7, 2009. What I observed was relatively minor water and wind erosion on the surface of the dam.
i) Some minor movement of the rail ties and paver stones of a few inches.
ii) Also observed was a ground-hog hole in the front face “upslope” side of the dam approximately 30 ft from the eastern side of the dam.
iii) There was some brush that tall grass that needs to be cut on the downward slope of the dam.
3.0 Lake Condition Report
The Cifrese Lake
Summary:
On November 3, 2007, engineer from Canger Engineering walked in and around the common area known as Cifrese Lake (“Lake”), Randolph Lot No._________, Morris County, New Jersey.
The Lake is the largest of four common areas under owned by the corporation known as “Mendham Lake Estates Property Association.” This corporation in turn has a board of trustees whose responsibility, it is to care for the common areas.
The Association comprises 49 homes and four common areas all in the Township Randolph, Morris County, New Jersey.
The Lake approximately 13 acres in size and is primarily fed via a creek known as “Dawson Creek” that runs into the northeastern corner of the Lake. There is also a storm run-off that is in the northeast corner. However, Dawson Creek provides all, non-direct precipitation, water to the Lake. The Lake has a damn built of concrete, earth and rock located at the southern end of the lake.
Classification of lakes condition
Lake water quality is most commonly assessed by reference to trophic categories under a modified version of the O.E.C.D. scheme, 1982 by setting parameters for the annual average values for total phosphorous, chlorophyll and water transparency-to assess the level of eutrophication and its effects.
Information on lakes is derived mainly from investigations carried out by the Local Authorities, the EPA and the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards.
The analysis of Canger Engineering did not involve the quality of the water or lack thereof. The analysis was of the visible characteristics of the Lake and Dawson Creek.
Visible Characteristics of the Lake
The Lake is experiencing significant changes The changes show obvious sizeable amounts of organic material that are clogging up the mouth of Dawson Creek and the storm drain runoff from Kingsbrook Ct. and deposited large amounts of sediment into the Lake itself. This sentiment, if not dealt with, will lead to the Lake going through detrimental appreciable changes. The Lake will decrease in size as sentiment continues to accumulate. Weeds will continue to grow on the sentiment thus pushing the northern end of the Lake – the shallowest end, farther and farther south.
Recommended Treatment
An abatement program where the Lake is cleaned of weeds and other plant life that is choking the water flow from Dawson Creek is highly recommended. Also a sentiment basin might be useful in combination with Dawson Creek being corrected so that it no longer churns up so much sentiment into the Lake. This Dawson Creek correction could include cleaning fallen trees, garbage and other weeds. Putting down rocks to prevent churning the Creek’s bottom would be very useful.
4.0 Remediation Possibilities and Work Proposals
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection recommends the clean-up of these rivers and encourages the programs with subsidized low-interest loans. These loans are under the D.E..P Office of Engineering and Construction pursuant to the Dam, Lake, Stream, Flood Control, Water Resources, Water Resources and Wastewater Treatment Project Bond Act of 2003 (N.J.A.C 7:24A-1.1). The loans are by law not to exceed two percent over 20yrs."[1] encourages lake maintenance by dredging and restoration by the Bond Act of 2003 means the removal of sand, silt, mud, sediment, rocks, stumps, vegetation, algae blooms and other general abatement and control of pollution of lakes caused by storm-water runoff, soil erosion, etc.
This law was enacted specifically for abatement of the problems seen at Cifrese Lake as the Lake is experiencing almost all of the above.
[1] Source David Rosenblatt, Administrator New Jersey Dept of Environment Protection Office of Engineering & Construction PO BOX 419 Trenton NJ 08625-0419 (609) 292-9236. http://www.nj.gov/dep/ec/lake_loan_app.pdf
6.0 Reference Material and Estimates
Definition: “ALCA” refers to “Any Lake Community Association”
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/dsscsf.pdf
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/o&mexam.pdf
Source: http://www.nj.gov/dep/damsafety/o&mexam.pdf
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Mendham Lakes Estates Member Continues to Try and Review All Books and Records But Is Consistently Resisted by the Recalcitrant Board
Thomas E. Maloney Attorney
Debby Strott, Daniel Rosen
and The Board of Trustees
MLEHOA
PO Box 173
Ironia NJ 07845
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I am in receipt of your letter of October 14, 2009.
Though you vaguely refer to N.J.S.A. 15A, the Association by-laws and a particular case, you fail to provide a specific citation which you believe affords the Board, at its sole discretion, the right to deny the membership from reviewing the books & records. Just generally saying so does not make it so. In refutation of your self-serving opinion, in fact, The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards, Bureau of Home Owner Protection’s “Association Regulation Initiative” states that access to financial records shall be granted to members. Section 16(d) of the N.J.S.A 46-8b-14(g) “empowers the Department, acting through the Bureau of Homeowner Protection, to enforce this right of inspection. The right of inspection includes the right to make copies.” I urge the Board to be open and transparent as much as possible and when a particular situation warrants discretion, the Board should offer some reason and not simply deny requests with no apparent logical explanation. Also, according to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs the Non-Profit Corporation Act, Title 15A, which you refer to generally, requires audits which the Board has fought so hard against. Any member is allowed to review books & records of a Homeowners Association and The Association Regulation Unit has the authority under N.J.S.A. 46:8b-16(d) to ensure an association responds to membership requests to review and copy the financial records required to be kept.” Note the Association is required to maintain the accounting records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (G.A.A.P.). Obviously, given the Board’s history of mishandling the books & records and Association operations, it has failed on both these responsibilities. This is irrefutable given the Board’s reckless behavior as exampled by not filing annual state reports causing the Association’s corporate status to be suspended, not collecting half the Association dues in a given year, etc. As you should be aware, N.J. law provides for more accountability to owners in common interest community. Condominiums and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are governed in this regard by New Jersey's Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act ("PREDFDA"). The New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Homeowner Protection accepts complaints from Homeowners Association members as well as Condominium Association members utilizing the same law previously cited. According to Ms. Jane DiCristina Director of Association Regulation in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the standards for transparency for condominium associations are the same for homeowners associations. To be more specific and to quote her directly:
"We would support your right (or any other owner in the homeowner's association) to access financial information by using language from both the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act and the Condominium Act."
-Ms. Janet DiCristina, Association Regulation, N.J.D.C.A.
You erroneously state in your letter that I was “never refused access to a review of the Association’s books of account”. While your memory may be faulty, the record is not. The stenographic transcript of the June 30, 2006 Motion hearing before Judge MacKenzie incontrovertibly shows the Board argued, through attorney Mr. Gregory Hyman that the Board was of the belief that it did not have to cooperate with my multiple books & records inspection requests over an period of almost one-year. As it turns out this opinion had no basis and was utterly rebuffed by the Court. To refresh your memory, below is the relevant verbatim exchange from the transcript:
Mr. Hyman: And the Board of trustees believed they did not have to respond to someone who was not in good standing.
Judge MacKenzie: Is there something in the bylaws that says that or is that –
Mr. Hyman: The bylaws are silent on that issue, your Honor, but that is the belief that they had.
---Source; Stenographic Transcript of Motion, June 20, 2006 before Judge MacKenzie; page 15 para.6
As it turns out what was your “belief” is not a legal basis for denying a member access to the Association’s books & records. I’m sure what was true in 2006 is true today. The Court dismissed your opinion or “belief” as it were, entirely and completely. Your recollection of the facts today is refuted by the transcript of what you argued three years ago. Note that this argument was totally rejected by the Court as it ordered the Association to provide access to the books & records. Notably absent in the Court’s subsequent order was any mention that it was at the Board’s discretion as to what could be viewed by a member.
The unsigned letter that you provided presumably from Thomas E. Sheridan seems to be in response to my request for the Association’s insurance loss run. However it is not sufficient as it is not a loss-run of the Association. Though I have asked twice for the Board to give Mr. Sheridan permission to answer any questions I may have, to date the Board has ignored my requests.
You continue to maintain that no cash deposits have been made. If you believe this is true, then the Board should not have a problem in asking the bank to provide all details regarding cash transactions –including deposit information related to the dates in question. Specifically, $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. I request the Board provide me access to this bank documentation for these dates.
Unless the Board can show that the information any member requests is privileged, the Board should produce any documentation requested. It is my opinion and that of many expert legal sources (specifically Mr. Christopher Florio, Co-Chair of Stark & Stark Community Association Group) that almost all functions of the Association, including documentation, should be open and available to the members of the Association as they relate to the general operation of the Association.
In both Judge MacKenzie’s July 13, 2006 Order and Judge Langois’ March 23, 2007 Order, the Board was ordered to allow me to “inspect the books & records of the Association.” The judges made no mention that what was to be provided should be determined by the Board.
As a reasonable matter, your contumacious in maintaining the unwarranted opinion that the books & records should not be provided to the membership, without you ever providing a logical reason for such an opinion, will not further any Association interests. In fact it will result in more Association time and resources being wasted simply to defend some specific Board member’s personal interests. Without the Board’s full cooperation in providing access to books & records to the membership, times when the Board is deficient in its responsibilities and fiduciary duties could go undiscovered at the Association’s peril. Such was the case when I discovered that the Board had neglected to file two consecutive years of annual reports with the State of New Jersey as required by law and the Association’s corporate charter and ability to conduct business in the State was revoked. It should be noted that the Board, in violation of its suspended corporate status, continued to operate in the State of N.J.
If the Board spent as much effort providing full access to Association’s books & records as it does fighting transparency and openness, these situations perhaps could be avoided.
Debby Strott, Daniel Rosen
and The Board of Trustees
MLEHOA
PO Box 173
Ironia NJ 07845
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I am in receipt of your letter of October 14, 2009.
Though you vaguely refer to N.J.S.A. 15A, the Association by-laws and a particular case, you fail to provide a specific citation which you believe affords the Board, at its sole discretion, the right to deny the membership from reviewing the books & records. Just generally saying so does not make it so. In refutation of your self-serving opinion, in fact, The New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, Division of Codes and Standards, Bureau of Home Owner Protection’s “Association Regulation Initiative” states that access to financial records shall be granted to members. Section 16(d) of the N.J.S.A 46-8b-14(g) “empowers the Department, acting through the Bureau of Homeowner Protection, to enforce this right of inspection. The right of inspection includes the right to make copies.” I urge the Board to be open and transparent as much as possible and when a particular situation warrants discretion, the Board should offer some reason and not simply deny requests with no apparent logical explanation. Also, according to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs the Non-Profit Corporation Act, Title 15A, which you refer to generally, requires audits which the Board has fought so hard against. Any member is allowed to review books & records of a Homeowners Association and The Association Regulation Unit has the authority under N.J.S.A. 46:8b-16(d) to ensure an association responds to membership requests to review and copy the financial records required to be kept.” Note the Association is required to maintain the accounting records, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (G.A.A.P.). Obviously, given the Board’s history of mishandling the books & records and Association operations, it has failed on both these responsibilities. This is irrefutable given the Board’s reckless behavior as exampled by not filing annual state reports causing the Association’s corporate status to be suspended, not collecting half the Association dues in a given year, etc. As you should be aware, N.J. law provides for more accountability to owners in common interest community. Condominiums and Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are governed in this regard by New Jersey's Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act ("PREDFDA"). The New Jersey Department of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Homeowner Protection accepts complaints from Homeowners Association members as well as Condominium Association members utilizing the same law previously cited. According to Ms. Jane DiCristina Director of Association Regulation in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the standards for transparency for condominium associations are the same for homeowners associations. To be more specific and to quote her directly:
"We would support your right (or any other owner in the homeowner's association) to access financial information by using language from both the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act and the Condominium Act."
-Ms. Janet DiCristina, Association Regulation, N.J.D.C.A.
You erroneously state in your letter that I was “never refused access to a review of the Association’s books of account”. While your memory may be faulty, the record is not. The stenographic transcript of the June 30, 2006 Motion hearing before Judge MacKenzie incontrovertibly shows the Board argued, through attorney Mr. Gregory Hyman that the Board was of the belief that it did not have to cooperate with my multiple books & records inspection requests over an period of almost one-year. As it turns out this opinion had no basis and was utterly rebuffed by the Court. To refresh your memory, below is the relevant verbatim exchange from the transcript:
Mr. Hyman: And the Board of trustees believed they did not have to respond to someone who was not in good standing.
Judge MacKenzie: Is there something in the bylaws that says that or is that –
Mr. Hyman: The bylaws are silent on that issue, your Honor, but that is the belief that they had.
---Source; Stenographic Transcript of Motion, June 20, 2006 before Judge MacKenzie; page 15 para.6
As it turns out what was your “belief” is not a legal basis for denying a member access to the Association’s books & records. I’m sure what was true in 2006 is true today. The Court dismissed your opinion or “belief” as it were, entirely and completely. Your recollection of the facts today is refuted by the transcript of what you argued three years ago. Note that this argument was totally rejected by the Court as it ordered the Association to provide access to the books & records. Notably absent in the Court’s subsequent order was any mention that it was at the Board’s discretion as to what could be viewed by a member.
The unsigned letter that you provided presumably from Thomas E. Sheridan seems to be in response to my request for the Association’s insurance loss run. However it is not sufficient as it is not a loss-run of the Association. Though I have asked twice for the Board to give Mr. Sheridan permission to answer any questions I may have, to date the Board has ignored my requests.
You continue to maintain that no cash deposits have been made. If you believe this is true, then the Board should not have a problem in asking the bank to provide all details regarding cash transactions –including deposit information related to the dates in question. Specifically, $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. I request the Board provide me access to this bank documentation for these dates.
Unless the Board can show that the information any member requests is privileged, the Board should produce any documentation requested. It is my opinion and that of many expert legal sources (specifically Mr. Christopher Florio, Co-Chair of Stark & Stark Community Association Group) that almost all functions of the Association, including documentation, should be open and available to the members of the Association as they relate to the general operation of the Association.
In both Judge MacKenzie’s July 13, 2006 Order and Judge Langois’ March 23, 2007 Order, the Board was ordered to allow me to “inspect the books & records of the Association.” The judges made no mention that what was to be provided should be determined by the Board.
As a reasonable matter, your contumacious in maintaining the unwarranted opinion that the books & records should not be provided to the membership, without you ever providing a logical reason for such an opinion, will not further any Association interests. In fact it will result in more Association time and resources being wasted simply to defend some specific Board member’s personal interests. Without the Board’s full cooperation in providing access to books & records to the membership, times when the Board is deficient in its responsibilities and fiduciary duties could go undiscovered at the Association’s peril. Such was the case when I discovered that the Board had neglected to file two consecutive years of annual reports with the State of New Jersey as required by law and the Association’s corporate charter and ability to conduct business in the State was revoked. It should be noted that the Board, in violation of its suspended corporate status, continued to operate in the State of N.J.
If the Board spent as much effort providing full access to Association’s books & records as it does fighting transparency and openness, these situations perhaps could be avoided.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Another spurious claim by Thomas E. Maloney ...just another example of why the MLE gets sued for some Board member's personal acts....Thomas E. Maloney, Jr. (and others for which the membership is currently paying the legal bills) is already facing one complaint of defamation from a homeowner and member of the MLE and now his false claims might cause another:
-------------
Sept 25, 2009
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I have received your September 2, 2009 letter which was in response to my letter from three months prior.
As the Association’s by-laws and NJ law both stipulate all books and records of the Association are available for any member’s review, I will exercise my right to review the Association’s insurance policies and past ten years loss run report as requested. I continue to think it is incredible that you have made it so difficult for me, a member of the MLE current on all my annual dues, to view the records for which I paid my allotted portion. The request for the past ten years loss run report is a new request given after six months of waiting for a reasonable explanation of the basis supporting the Tom Maloney published comment that “the Melly lawsuit” was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling which has yet to be answered. Notable, the insurance broker’s June 17, 2009 letter-written by insurance broker T.J. Sheridan months after Tom Maloney was asked by me to provide a basis for his assertion, did not cite the Melly lawsuit as responsible for the deductible change. For the record, the insurance broker’s letter didn’t mention the Melly lawsuit at all-thus refuting the latest attempt to provide a basis for Tom Maloney’s claim. After months of patiently waiting and reading a series of changing –and eventually debunked excuses from Tom Maloney, the Board generally and Tom Maloney specifically have not yet provided a legitimate reason for this claim. My request that the Board inform T.J. Sheridan to cooperate fully and answer all and any questions that I may have in regards to the deductible was ignored and not answered by the Board’s September 2, 2009 letter. This request is still outstanding.
If these Association documents will not be made available, the board should notify me before I schedule a meeting with Vincent Papalia so more time and resources are not wasted once again reviewing just partial books and records. The missing monthly statements of October 2003, December 2008, January 2004 and July 2005 should also be made available at this time. The reason for this request is simple, though not a prerequisite for any member’s request and review – a member should be able to view all of the funds going in as well as going out of any MLE account, especially if those funds are purported to be associated with short term loans that are not reflected anywhere else in the MLE records.
Your letter does not address why you won’t answer the question asked in my June 22, 2009 letter regarding large cash deposits of unknown origin and nature. Therefore the request is being made once again verbatim to the request made on June 22, 2009:
“There were also three sizeable cash deposits discovered during the Grand Jury investigation of $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. Please provide all documentation related to these cash deposits, including but not limited to, who deposited the funds on behalf of the Association, on behalf of which homeowners’ accounts the deposits made, all related documentation, etc.”
Please let me know if you are once again going to refuse to answer any questions about these cash deposits or if you will cooperate in providing an explanation with supporting documentation to the nature of the cash deposits.
Your letter also “calls” upon me to “issue a written apology and retraction of” my “false accusations made against Dan Rosen and the Board”. Strangely, your letter fails to cite any specific accusation that is false much less provide a refutation of anything I have said or written. These matters started when I discovered several irregular financial transactions and have sought for years to view the records which would explain the irregularities. For the record, the Board initially and unsuccessfully tried to argue that I did not have a right to see the books & records – this fallacious reasoning was unequivocally rejected by the Court. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to even consider your request. Please state explicitly what exactly you believe was false otherwise I shall assume that everything I have said and/or written regarding Association matters shall be considered by the Board to be true and accurate. If the Board is able to refute “an accusation” that I have allegedly made then I would be more than willing to correct the record. I am sure the Board, given its fiduciary responsibility to make sure everything it reports and publishes is true and accurate at all times, would be more than willing to do the same. The fact remains, six months have passed since Tom Maloney was asked to provide the basis for his claim that I was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling and after he has made various attempts to provide a basis –none have turned out to be true. Therefore the Board is, for one last time asked to correct the record or you will leave me no other choice but to seek a court ordered remedy. This would unnecessarily cost Association money and resources for no reason other than furthering some personal agenda which is not in the best interests of the Association.
Your characterization that some of the information requested is “for materials that are not subject to review by Member pursuant to the By-Laws and New Jersey law”. However, you neglect to provide even a rudimentary explanation why or to cite a basis for such an opinion in any statute or case law. As stated above, I am a dues-paying member of the MLE and current on my annual assessment. Do you honestly believe that if we went before a Judge or any reasonable objective person, he or she would believe that I am obligated to pay my dues, I can be sued for not paying my dues, you can put a lien on my house for failure to pay those dues, but the Board does not believe I should allowed to see what you spend my dues for? No reasonable person would believe this reasoning either logical or fair.
I look forward to your cooperation and reply.
-------------
Sept 25, 2009
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Continuous Attempt to Review MLEHOA Books & Records
Dear Board,
I have received your September 2, 2009 letter which was in response to my letter from three months prior.
As the Association’s by-laws and NJ law both stipulate all books and records of the Association are available for any member’s review, I will exercise my right to review the Association’s insurance policies and past ten years loss run report as requested. I continue to think it is incredible that you have made it so difficult for me, a member of the MLE current on all my annual dues, to view the records for which I paid my allotted portion. The request for the past ten years loss run report is a new request given after six months of waiting for a reasonable explanation of the basis supporting the Tom Maloney published comment that “the Melly lawsuit” was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling which has yet to be answered. Notable, the insurance broker’s June 17, 2009 letter-written by insurance broker T.J. Sheridan months after Tom Maloney was asked by me to provide a basis for his assertion, did not cite the Melly lawsuit as responsible for the deductible change. For the record, the insurance broker’s letter didn’t mention the Melly lawsuit at all-thus refuting the latest attempt to provide a basis for Tom Maloney’s claim. After months of patiently waiting and reading a series of changing –and eventually debunked excuses from Tom Maloney, the Board generally and Tom Maloney specifically have not yet provided a legitimate reason for this claim. My request that the Board inform T.J. Sheridan to cooperate fully and answer all and any questions that I may have in regards to the deductible was ignored and not answered by the Board’s September 2, 2009 letter. This request is still outstanding.
If these Association documents will not be made available, the board should notify me before I schedule a meeting with Vincent Papalia so more time and resources are not wasted once again reviewing just partial books and records. The missing monthly statements of October 2003, December 2008, January 2004 and July 2005 should also be made available at this time. The reason for this request is simple, though not a prerequisite for any member’s request and review – a member should be able to view all of the funds going in as well as going out of any MLE account, especially if those funds are purported to be associated with short term loans that are not reflected anywhere else in the MLE records.
Your letter does not address why you won’t answer the question asked in my June 22, 2009 letter regarding large cash deposits of unknown origin and nature. Therefore the request is being made once again verbatim to the request made on June 22, 2009:
“There were also three sizeable cash deposits discovered during the Grand Jury investigation of $1,000.00 on January 16, 2004, $1,500.00 on March 15, 2005 and $2,500.00 on March 30, 2005. Please provide all documentation related to these cash deposits, including but not limited to, who deposited the funds on behalf of the Association, on behalf of which homeowners’ accounts the deposits made, all related documentation, etc.”
Please let me know if you are once again going to refuse to answer any questions about these cash deposits or if you will cooperate in providing an explanation with supporting documentation to the nature of the cash deposits.
Your letter also “calls” upon me to “issue a written apology and retraction of” my “false accusations made against Dan Rosen and the Board”. Strangely, your letter fails to cite any specific accusation that is false much less provide a refutation of anything I have said or written. These matters started when I discovered several irregular financial transactions and have sought for years to view the records which would explain the irregularities. For the record, the Board initially and unsuccessfully tried to argue that I did not have a right to see the books & records – this fallacious reasoning was unequivocally rejected by the Court. Therefore, it is obviously impossible to even consider your request. Please state explicitly what exactly you believe was false otherwise I shall assume that everything I have said and/or written regarding Association matters shall be considered by the Board to be true and accurate. If the Board is able to refute “an accusation” that I have allegedly made then I would be more than willing to correct the record. I am sure the Board, given its fiduciary responsibility to make sure everything it reports and publishes is true and accurate at all times, would be more than willing to do the same. The fact remains, six months have passed since Tom Maloney was asked to provide the basis for his claim that I was responsible for the Association’s deductible doubling and after he has made various attempts to provide a basis –none have turned out to be true. Therefore the Board is, for one last time asked to correct the record or you will leave me no other choice but to seek a court ordered remedy. This would unnecessarily cost Association money and resources for no reason other than furthering some personal agenda which is not in the best interests of the Association.
Your characterization that some of the information requested is “for materials that are not subject to review by Member pursuant to the By-Laws and New Jersey law”. However, you neglect to provide even a rudimentary explanation why or to cite a basis for such an opinion in any statute or case law. As stated above, I am a dues-paying member of the MLE and current on my annual assessment. Do you honestly believe that if we went before a Judge or any reasonable objective person, he or she would believe that I am obligated to pay my dues, I can be sued for not paying my dues, you can put a lien on my house for failure to pay those dues, but the Board does not believe I should allowed to see what you spend my dues for? No reasonable person would believe this reasoning either logical or fair.
I look forward to your cooperation and reply.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
June 11, 2009
The Board of Trustees
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
PO Box 173
Ironia, NJ 07845
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Claim on Association website
Dear Board and Tom,
As you know or should know a claim has been published on the Association website that states the following:
“Insurance premiums have increased normally, but the deductible on the Directors and Officers policy has increased from $2500 to $5000, as a result of the Melly lawsuit and applies to defense costs.”
-Respectfully submitted, Tom Tom (sic) Maloney, Secretary
On June 2, 2009 I asked Tom Maloney to provide the basis for this claim. In a response later that day Tom Maloney said the claim was made “...from the oral report to Members made by Debby Strott, the Treasurer. The Minutes accurately report the report of the Treasurer.”
On June 9, 2009 I asked Debby Strott if she made this claim as Tom Maloney stated. Debby shortly thereafter, denied making this claim.
Since no one has provided any basis to this claim that is published on the Association’s website, I think the only proper action is for the Board to correct the record. I’m sure the Board is very busy with all of its other affairs; therefore I suggest the following corrective course of action:
• First, the Board correct the erroneous claim on the website by stating this claim was made in error and should not have been made in the first place; merely deleting these baseless claim will not be sufficient;
• Second, the Board notify the Association membership and anyone else that it may be aware has or had access to the website in writing that the claim was made in error and should have never been made. This clarification should be very clear and unambiguous.
If the Board agrees with the above suggestion, then it would be appreciated if this clarification was first sent to me so there won’t be any further misunderstanding. Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
The Board of Trustees
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
PO Box 173
Ironia, NJ 07845
Mr. Tom Maloney
Secretary
Mendham Lake Estates Homeowner Association
7 Yorkshire Dr.
Mendham, NJ 07945
In Re: Claim on Association website
Dear Board and Tom,
As you know or should know a claim has been published on the Association website that states the following:
“Insurance premiums have increased normally, but the deductible on the Directors and Officers policy has increased from $2500 to $5000, as a result of the Melly lawsuit and applies to defense costs.”
-Respectfully submitted, Tom Tom (sic) Maloney, Secretary
On June 2, 2009 I asked Tom Maloney to provide the basis for this claim. In a response later that day Tom Maloney said the claim was made “...from the oral report to Members made by Debby Strott, the Treasurer. The Minutes accurately report the report of the Treasurer.”
On June 9, 2009 I asked Debby Strott if she made this claim as Tom Maloney stated. Debby shortly thereafter, denied making this claim.
Since no one has provided any basis to this claim that is published on the Association’s website, I think the only proper action is for the Board to correct the record. I’m sure the Board is very busy with all of its other affairs; therefore I suggest the following corrective course of action:
• First, the Board correct the erroneous claim on the website by stating this claim was made in error and should not have been made in the first place; merely deleting these baseless claim will not be sufficient;
• Second, the Board notify the Association membership and anyone else that it may be aware has or had access to the website in writing that the claim was made in error and should have never been made. This clarification should be very clear and unambiguous.
If the Board agrees with the above suggestion, then it would be appreciated if this clarification was first sent to me so there won’t be any further misunderstanding. Please let me know how you wish to proceed.
Friday, April 3, 2009
MLE Poll Results
The results of the March 4, 2009 poll (whether or not a business should be allowed to operate in the MLE) are the following:
YES: 31%
NO: 69%
I think it is important to add some of the commentary that was offered along with member votes. But first, defining terms is important and there it should be mentioned there was some confusion as to what a "business" , "home office" and "telecommuting" mean. "Telecommuting" is not the same thing as operating a "business" out of a home in the MLE-a business could have the MLE homeowner's address as the business address, could meet customers in the MLE home and have employees work there. It is important to make a distinction between a “Home Business or Office” (these two terms are synonymous) and “telecommuting”. These are separate and distinguishable activities. “Telecommuting” in today’s vernacular, is not a violation of either MLE rules & regs or the Township ordinances. “Telecommuting” defined as someone connecting remotely to their office or place of business.
Here are some member comments:
1) "Yes....can have one person sitting on the computer running an internet business..."
(MY NOTE: many people had similar comments to this one: they wanted to distinguish between someone sitting in their home and operating a business without having customers, employees and other characteristics of a more "traditional" business. I did not get a sense from their commentary that they really had an opposing opinion of how the character of the MLE neighborhood should be from many of those that voted "No") ;
2) "many people work from home offices and it is too restrictive to say that no business can be operated from the home within MLE";
3) "The Declaration, By Laws, and other accompanying documents are among the most ambiguous, "mistake-filled", and poorly written documents..."
4) "No..a business should not operate within MLE...";
5) "This is a residential community and the deed restriction was in place @ the time of my purchase. The dues structure is equal across all properties and was not designed to accommodate individuals who are avoiding business expenses by operating in a non-commercial area."
I thank you all for participating and I believe a consensus can be formed and a procedure implemented that will prevent what just happened with regards to 23 Kingsbrook Ct. variance.
YES: 31%
NO: 69%
I think it is important to add some of the commentary that was offered along with member votes. But first, defining terms is important and there it should be mentioned there was some confusion as to what a "business" , "home office" and "telecommuting" mean. "Telecommuting" is not the same thing as operating a "business" out of a home in the MLE-a business could have the MLE homeowner's address as the business address, could meet customers in the MLE home and have employees work there. It is important to make a distinction between a “Home Business or Office” (these two terms are synonymous) and “telecommuting”. These are separate and distinguishable activities. “Telecommuting” in today’s vernacular, is not a violation of either MLE rules & regs or the Township ordinances. “Telecommuting” defined as someone connecting remotely to their office or place of business.
Here are some member comments:
1) "Yes....can have one person sitting on the computer running an internet business..."
(MY NOTE: many people had similar comments to this one: they wanted to distinguish between someone sitting in their home and operating a business without having customers, employees and other characteristics of a more "traditional" business. I did not get a sense from their commentary that they really had an opposing opinion of how the character of the MLE neighborhood should be from many of those that voted "No") ;
2) "many people work from home offices and it is too restrictive to say that no business can be operated from the home within MLE";
3) "The Declaration, By Laws, and other accompanying documents are among the most ambiguous, "mistake-filled", and poorly written documents..."
4) "No..a business should not operate within MLE...";
5) "This is a residential community and the deed restriction was in place @ the time of my purchase. The dues structure is equal across all properties and was not designed to accommodate individuals who are avoiding business expenses by operating in a non-commercial area."
I thank you all for participating and I believe a consensus can be formed and a procedure implemented that will prevent what just happened with regards to 23 Kingsbrook Ct. variance.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
State settles with Randolph church on alleged misuse of donations
BY PEGGY WRIGHT • AND ABBOTT KOLOFF • March 31, 2009
State Division of Consumer Affairs officials will hold a press conference in Randolph Wednesday to announce the settlement of an alleged misuse of donations by leaders of Church Alive Inc.
Church Alive officials acknowledged today that they agreed to pay back $120,000 in donations that had been made to refurbish their church building, on Route 10, which they later sold. But they denied any wrongdoing, saying they sold the building after about half of their members left the church.
“We weren’t able to make mortgage payments when those members left,” said Philip DuPlessis, a pastor at Church Alive, also known as Randolph Christian Church.
In a press release issued today, state officials said church leaders sold the church building and used the proceeds to buy a $1.6 million luxury home in Randolph and a 78-foot schooner, among other items. Tax records show that Church Alive purchased a home for that amount last year.
Jeff Lamm, spokesman for the state Division of Consumer Affairs, said the state would not elaborate on its press release until Wednesday’s press conference.
DuPlessis acknowledged the purchase of the home, saying it serves as a parsonage, home to the church’s senior pastor, Eric Simon, and his family. He said it also serves as a place where the church’s 75 members participate in leadership development and other activities.
“Our church members have full access and use of the building,” he said. “It’s an investment we made when we sold the (church) building. … We are very grateful we didn’t invest in the stock market.”
As for the schooner, he said the church purchased a small interest in the Liberty Schooner, based in Jersey City, used for outreach to children in urban areas.
DuPlessis said the church paid $150,000 to refurbish the Route 10 building before selling it to another church. Church Alive still uses the building for Sunday services, having signed a five-year lease, and will pay nothing the first two years, he said.
Church officials issued a prepared statement today, saying they signed a consent order with the state that refunds “some contributions made to the church building fund by certain former member-leaders.” It also said the church agreed to make changes in some current investments and to reorganize its constitution and bylaws to establish “stronger checks and balances.”
State officials scheduled a press conference for 11 a.m. Wednesday in front of the home purchased by the church last year at 14 Kingsbrook Court, Randolph. Consumer Affairs Director David Szuchman, investigators and attorneys are expected to attend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
