Dear Joe:
We spoke on June 11, 2018 about my letter to you of June 4, 2018 concerning PVPA Governance issues. I have not heard back from you, but hopefully you have looked at the issue and agree that Article II of the current By-laws provides all the authority to the Board of Directors to advance the interests of the membership as property owners and to take responsibility for maintenance, repair, improvement and management of the common property.
If you do agree, then the discussion of special Tenant-in-Common voting designations and additional by-laws amendments to signed contracts, approve arrangement and create rule making authority can be avoided.
I am struggling with the claimed anxiety in the May 13, 2018 conference call minutes and in the December 15, 2017 memo that Judge McClusky's decision, "makes all owners as Tenants-in-Common" and "ignored 140 years of the association rules and regulations (creating) a difficult. if not impossible task." As you know, Judge McClusky's decision did not make the owners tenants-in-common, it confirmed the pattern of conveyance since 1877 when George Ivers started the tenancy-in-common PVPA ownership. But for the mistaken position and claims of Richard Randall which required judicial confirmation of the tenancy-in-common, that fact has been abundantly clear in almost every deed of conveyance from the second generation of owners in the early I 900's until the present day. Further, the Gribuski decision from Judge Gilbert in 1995 clearly set forth the tenants-in-common relationship.
In the June 4th letter I asked, "what is the legal basis for a need for 100% of tenants-incommon to authorize work on the pavilion or to form a new tenants-in-common voting protocol?" If it takes 100% of co-tenants to approve painting a building or repairing a roof how was the transfer of real property to Hooning and Holliday authorized? As I recall, there was a straw poll by email whether the members wanted to fund and fight the Holliday lawsuit in court. Although Phyllis Johnson has requested a tally of the votes in this email poll, nothing has been provided. While we did not challenge the legality of the Hooning/Holliday transfer, the Board's current position seems to undermine the propriety of that transfer.
I enclose a December 15, 2017 memo Roger Harris sent as Board President to all members. I have two questions, first on page 2, the second sentence refers to Hooning "protect(ing) access to his association granted common property for his septic system". What is Mr. Harris referring to there? Is it your position that the PVPA conveyed property to Hooning for his septic system? If so, please send the documents and minutes concerning the "association granted common property." Secondly, on page 3, Section "4" Impacts of Judge's Decision". I don't understand any of the three claims of Mr. Harris. Did you approve this description of the impact? Do you agree with these remarks?
