2013 Special Meeting: Two Amendment Proposals
For this meeting due to no quorum at the Annual Meeting, two amendment proposals are announced on the posted flier. These were also proposed last year.
By-Laws Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!
The By-Laws amendment proposal is not appropriate by adding additional language not addressing the main focus. Voting needs to be in compliance with the Master Deed and national law since this is a mixed-use building. I was the one that pointed this out to the Board in early 2012. Of course, at least one Board member was surprised. Strange, I would expect Directors on the Board to read the important documents.
This wording and the procedure followed at the only meeting we have had with a quorum in 2011 made the votes illegal. But there was another action taken at that meeting which was also not in compliance that I have written about before.
The voting procedure in the By-Laws is illegal and cannot be followed anyway so wording which needs changing is not the main concern I have with this amendment proposal.
The wording "...as their voting rights are deemed assigned to the condominium corporation" is the problem. What does this mean? Votes for the Board to decide upon? There is no clear definition and meaning. Why not clearly state the meaning and intention?
Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11. Voting.
Master Deed Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!
This proposal is to strip away the rights of Unit Owners. Please read this amendment very carefully. I would think that the first part would be enough for anyone to immediately vote NO.
Also notice that this amendment is only for the residential areas and not the commercial areas. I wonder why? I cannot imagine why this would be so!
The first part reads, "The Condominium Corporation is hereby expressly appointed by each and every unit owner as the attorney-in-fact of said unit owner, with full power and authority to take actual possession of the delinquent unit at once..."
Do you want them to be your "attorney-in-fact"? "Delinquent unit at once"? Yes, one second after midnight you are delinquent and "actual possession" may commence. It does say "at once" does it not?
The Philippines has laws to deal with overdue payments and property. There is no need for extrajudicial anything.
Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11 (j).