1) I have engaged a local lawyer to get advice regarding the mandatory signing of an NDA for new Board members. The lawyer says that this requirement absolutely violates the NY Sunshine Statute. I, therefore, suggest that any newly elected Board members refuse to sign the NDA on that grounds. The success of Board members to avoid signing the NDA will allow them to provide information to the HOA members, without legal reprisal. They will, however, still have the fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the BHVA organization, as they see fit.
2) Since BHVA is a non-profit organization, they must meet certain non-profit accounting requirements; notably the tracking and use of "restricted" funds. When funds are acquired by a non-profit organization with the distinct and stated restricted purpose, those funds can only be used for such purpose. If the funds are redirected to other purposes, it is my understanding that the organization puts it's tax designation at risk, which clearly would be a violation of the Board's fiduciary responsibilities. Such action would also have to appear in the annual audit. (eg, maintenance fund moved to legal fund). If the Board fails to report the redirection of restricted funds to the auditor, They have not followed the tax law and are derelict in their financial and fiduciary responsibilities. Although I do not personally know that this has happened, there should be Board meeting minutes and other documents stating why certain "special Assessments" were collected. These documents may constitute a legal and intended "restriction". The audit and other documents mentioned above should be reviewed to identify if a failure to fulfill the restrictions has occurred.
3) Recently, the cove agreement has been used to intimidate HOA members from accessing the beach and docks. That is how I and other members have received it. This statement has come from Condo HOA Presidents in an official format (constant contact with HOA titles by their names), but the communication is of personal opinion. Firstly, to allow some private HOA members to use this mode of communication for personal communication (they even say it is their personal opinion) while preventing other private HOA members the same access, is either an abuse of services the HOA pays for, or even discrimination. Since the system is controlled by Kenrick, it may be useful to direct legal action to shut down this inflammatory and unofficial communication. Further, the content of these communications seems to indicate ongoing communication with the BHVA Board members. If the BHVA Board members are divulging information to the Condo Presidents in violation of the NDAs they have signed, they could face legal consequences.
4) Continuing on the Cove agreement...That document was an agreement between our neighbors and the HOA developer to limit dock size, appurtenant equipment, and undesired use of Shore Drive for ingress and egress. It is my understanding that the residents of Shore Drive have since moved away and the Fields have acquired their property, thereby becoming a party to the agreement. If the Fields provide permission for BHVA members to ingress and egress through their property, it is likely that the BHVA Board has little recourse to prevent this from occurring, and any such action may be considered as denying use and access to personal property that the BHVA has no ownership or control.
No comments:
Post a Comment