RAC's 2nd Quarterly Report

Residential Areas Committee's (RAC) 2nd Quarterly Report

Below is the report and comments.  First, the committee in the opinion of myself and others is illegal in the work done without our witness and consent.  This committee is made up of Directors who were not elected.  These unelected Directors are on the Board of Directors which is controlled by the developers and has members, Directors, who are not elected by the Unit Owners.  Unit Owners are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC).  The Board has been self-appointing and self-anointing in all that they do with our money in private and secret meetings.  The regular Board meetings are not open to Unit Owners.

There are links on the side which include the article "Why Condo Corps Fail."  Please do as we and other Unit Owners have been doing and that is explaining what takes place in this building while guiding others to the laws and articles on the situation.

Page 1 of the silly self promotion:

They write reviewing "certain contracts."  How about all contracts and policies?  Why not everything?  Unit Owners are still denied access to these contracts and policies.  Why?  What is being hidden?

We need to see all contracts in order to compare to Minutes to discover when approved at legally sanctioned Board meetings if at all.  When were yearly or periodic renewals made?  So many questions with all this since turnover being hidden by walls placed in the face of Unit Owners who are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC).

Why are we involved with in employee trust funds?  What is this all about?  The SCCC hires agencies and they supply their employees.

The criteria for the hiring of the security agency is ridiculous.  Quality and Cost are the most important factors.  Who in the committee is into the size?

Why was the security force not reduced given the CCTV?  So much money for CCTV.  In fact, money, Our Money, flying in all directions.

The mailboxes are a joke on us.  Why were not prefabricated mailboxes not installed by the developer/builder?  Once again, SCCC money, Our Money, spent on what should have been there to begin with.

The signage is another sickening example of wasted money and bad taste.  The elevators have numbers inside them when stopping at a floor.  The bad taste signs also have a "F."  I know the F stands for floor but there is another word that would be appropriate.  The numbers are a waste of money and the F's just compound the waste.  The number signs for the Mayflower Tower are another example of sickening bad taste and wasteful spending.  The design does not match the signs for each unit.  Why all this nonsense cluttering the building when so much else needs to be done?

Page 2 of the silly self promotion:

CCTV cameras will not save money unless they help to replace the excessive number of guards.

The "Steering Committee" (SC) was never a predecessor of the RAC.  The SC was not elected by a legally recognized entity of the SCCC.  No government agency recognized these few individuals.  It is a shocking statement to be made that the SC was somehow tied with the RAC.  The only claim that may be made is that individuals remaining in the group called the "Steering Committee" were appointed not elected to the Board of Directors.  The RAC members were in turn appointed from within the unelected Board.

The elevators were also the concern of other Unit Owners who made efforts now ignored by this history.

All Board meetings have been secret and private with Unit Owners refused to observe and witness.  A complete set of Minutes & Resolutions have also been refused allowing Unit Owners to know what has been taking place with unelected Directors and Our Money.

I have written many times about the elevators and threatened actions never taking place.  This situation is laughable on how it has been handled by all of the unelected whether on the unelected Board or "Steering Committee", a concerned group with no legal capacity.

Page 3 of the silly self promotion:

The "independent professional firm" was as all else contracts in private and secret with Unit Owners once again left in the dark as to what takes place with Our Money.  When & Where did this take place?  It is no surprise what a horror the elevators have been for all of the Unit Owners.

Besides the expense another unknown entity is revealed to us.  Another law firm besides the others for the Board.  Where does all the money come from for all this?  When will Unit Owners be allowed to witness all meetings and have up-to-date knowledge?

As I had asked previously, where is the "Undertaking?"  So many documents refused to members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation, the Unit Owners.

I had given the steps for the elevators before this report.  But, mirrors were placed in the cars seemingly ignoring priorities of mechanics and safety.

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/beautification-campaign-or-coverup.html

Under the heading "Finance", the electric meter is discussed,  Yes, actions once again not allowed witness by Unit Owners for analysis.  Given the saga of Meralco meters for each unit with a difference of the original deposit and what was given to Meralco discovered by Ryan & I.  The difference was taken without Unit Owner consent and then the horrendous gauntlet that we were put through for over a year to get our original deposit back.  We had to give another deposit in our names since the original deposit we paid was in the name of Greenfield.  We have no trust with such activities unless shown and completely given all the facts.

As for the trash bins, how about a better definition of wet and dry.  Many Unit Owners see this as a problem I have written about before.

Page 4 of the silly self promotion:

"You are not paying the VAT on your condo dues, ...?"  Talaga!  Where does Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC) get its money in the bank account?  Does it not come from the members of the SCCC?  Unit Owners.

Has a Homeowners Association been thought about to avoid VAT on some expenses?  Perhaps, but following the law for its creation which would take power form the Board handing more control to Unit Owners is the fear.  Who fears?

They claim an idea which Ryan & I have been practicing since first arriving.  The lights in the hallways are a little much and use power.  Did they not communicate this idea we have been practicing and they now suggest to the security guards?

This also brings up communication between Board and management who then need to communicate with the security guards.  Why?  They turn all of the lights back on when we turn half off providing enough light.  Yes, just like an old comedy.  We certainly do have some clowns.

Coordination and Communication in many respects is a serious failing in the managing of the building.  Unit Owners being the highest level of authority at the Annual or Special Meetings have had their rights taken being emasculated by a developer controlled Board with appointed groomed ones.

Last year's meeting like others was not followed by a legally required meeting(s) for an election to take place as required by the Corporate Code - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/04/title-iii-section-24-of-corporate-code.html  and the history of meetings - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-history-of-annual-sccc-meetings.html .

The unelected write that "By law this is given two weeks before the meeting."  This is in reference to notification of the Annual Meeting.  But that is a requirement if there is no statement in the By-Laws.  The Corporate Code states:  "That written notice of regular meetings shall be sent to all stockholders or members of record at least two (2) weeks prior to the meeting, unless a different period is required by the by-laws."  Our By-Laws say only 10 days - https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0Sq5pyrVRznYzE0YjU1M2YtZTZjZC00OWJmLTk5YWUtNTk4NDllNWZiZWYw/edit?usp=sharing .  For more on announcement:  http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/sccc-by-laws-official-announcement-2013.html .

But, this also means the Board may announce prior to this 10 day time though it has failed to do so.  Such an appropriate gesture would offer greater participation.  A clear explanation as to such action working is written in the following - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/reply-to-2013-annual-meeting-memo-proxy.html (See the update at the bottom of the post.)

Once again, the proxy requirement is made too complicated.  Check here to read what the By-Laws state and not the form with a ploy - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/search?q=2013+proxy (See Section 8.)

The DEVELOPER CANNOT VOTE YOUR SHARES!  Why do they write "The consequence of not attending and not submitting a proxy is that the developer can now legally vote your shares."?  If this were true, the ploy on the proxy form giving the Chair your vote would not be needed.  Also, a quorum would have been automatic at all past meetings.

The proxy form which is NOT required needs to be changed or not used if you do not like it or portions of it.  I would urge you to cross out the chairman clause unless you want the developer to have your vote.

To end this latest joke on Unit Owners, they once again do not place titles next to signatures.  They were not elected but appointed by the developer controlled Board.

This is the link to the first report this unelected committee distributed - http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-star-chamber-and-its-residential.html

(Click here for a .pdf of the report above.)