The RAC's 2013 4th Quarterly Report

The RAC's 2013 4th Quarterly Report

Page 1)  Under the first topic and sentence I get the image and feeling that would like to be conveyed:  "As usual the residential elevators malfunction once in a while."  I guess this neglects the fact that the service elevator has not functioned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many months and over a year.  Other elevators have been offline for periods of time and the next elevator is being torn apart.  So we will get another ugly look when the entrances are repaired lowering the value of our building.  The refurbished entrances are not acceptable.

A curious word is not in the plural.  Developer should be plural since there were two.  Or, the clause should be written as one of the developers.  The Undertaking is mentioned but has anyone other than the unelected and illegally appointed and one holdover Director ever been allowed the privilege to see this Undertaking?  I know there are private & secret Board meetings but we as members should not be denied viewing and obtaining such documents.

Where is the Undertaking hidden?  If anyone knows, please tell us.

Where are all the documents covering control and ownership of the commercial elevators?  Why are these not scanned or copied for Unit Owners?  Why are all these and so many other records kept from Unit Owners or made difficult to obtain?  Why all the secrecy?

Any "cudgels" being taken up for residential Unit Owners are by those not elected and appointments seemingly in violation of the Philippine Supreme Court decision, Valle Verde vs Africa.  Once again so much taking place with Unit Owners not able to witness Board meetings.

I find Greenfield's demand against Soho Central Condominium to be pathetically laughable.  Residential Areas pay dues of 65 pesos per square meter.  The Commercial Areas paid 65 then that was lowered to 41 and then lowered again to 26.5 pesos per square meter and they have the nerve to ask the condominium corporation to pay!  But it gets worse when reading the report.

I see this dues lowering to in effect create a subsidizing of large windows and escalators.  Were these approved since they are major structural changes to the building?  When and by whom was approval given?

"However, the GDC (Greenfield Development Corporation) officers present during the meeting claimed that they had turned over the commercial elevators to CPMI (Century Properties Management Inc) and had some document to show that Engr. Gerry Mina, CPMI's Vice President who once in a while uses the title 'OIC (Officer in Charge), of Soho Central Condominium', had signified acceptance of the commercial elevators."

CPMI is not and never has been a member of the Board of Directors of Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  What gave this employee working under contract at Soho Central the right to sign for the condominium corporation?  In fact, I now question the contract being in force upon Soho Central.  Oh, but this is not the only time this employee has exercised power as a Director of Soho Central Condominium Corporation.

I have written an outline of the history of Annual Meetings and this employee had an integral part to play in 2010.  Fortunately, a letter was preserved and I give it to you now.  Yes, this employee canceled the Annual Meeting as required.

Annual Meeting history outline:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-history-of-annual-sccc-meetings.html

2010 Annual Meeting cancellation letter:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/evidence-of-knowledge_4.html

At the link above you will find a violation made regarding the Annual Meeting.  The Annual Meeting may not be canceled in such a manner and quorum may only be determined at the start of the meeting and not by an employee of Century Properties Management Inc.  So now we have another instance of the power of the condominium corporation being taken from the Unit Owners.

But the decline of Unit Owners' units goes further with the following two sentences.  I find the following sickening.  "We rebuked the acceptance as not being legal for improper documentation and without Board acceptance.  Eventually, both the RAC and CPC agreed on sharing the expense of rehabilitating the commercial elevators through a 'beneficial' method."

There was no need to rebuke but to state quite clearly that the elevators were not turned over to Soho Central Condominium Corporation and there is no evidence of such a property transfer and the employee was acting without proper legal authority.  The second sentence above shows the rebuke of the unelected and illegally seated RAC to be only words then ACTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS AND PROPERTY VALUES OF ALL UNIT OWNERS.  "Beneficial" method is a joke on Unit Owners.  The RAC conceded to an unBeneficial method digging into the pockets of Unit Owners due to this bad decision.

As for the word rehabilitate, see my past post and it would apply with those elevators, too.

The rights of all Unit Owners are once again being denied by these actions.  WE WANT THE PERMIT TO OPERATE.

There is a short comment about the intercom which I have written on and took action in the past that was ignored.  The intercom is a sickening laughable joke from the developer/builder.

Page 2)  This page is mainly on financial matters.  The problem of the topic written about has questions that remain after the supposed details.  The first paragraph should be divided into two paragraphs with one on a reconciliation and the other Meralco.  Meralco, will the problems with Meralco in this building never end.

Would someone explain what this reconciled amount is and what it is about?  What is it that MDGI owes Soho Central Condominium Corporation?  Do they have our money in their bank account?  This entire paragraph needs a much clearer explanation.  The Meralco claim is also quite curious and needs a full explanation for Unit Owners.  Additionally, where are these matters in the financial statements and backup material?

I see more financial arrangements being made without Unit Owners witnessing meetings taking place regarding the ads in the elevators.  Unit Owners as members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation deserve the right to comment on such matters.  The current negotiations conducted without our knowledge is a severe infringement upon our ownership by the unelected Directors.

What is this separate account?  Why are the funds placed there?  Where is this fund?  Would not a financial statement reflect such monies?

The Globe Telecommunications deal has insufficient details explaining all the months' rates and what is the normal charge for such services much less why Globe has not paid.

The delinquent dues that have accumulated since turnover for me point to mismanaging of the building with collection being a part of the tasks.  I see no excuse for the problem to have grown to this extent and would like to know all parties on the managing side who are to blame.  If this has to do with a contracted management unable to do its job, then they have not met their obligation for the contract.  Of course, the added complication of an unelected Board and RAC that was not formed to handle matters as required in the By-Laws along with appointments to the Board in direct violation of Valle Verde vs Africa has not helped the situation.  This building is diving into financial catastrophe.

Nine million (PHP9,000,000.00) is way too late and should have been more current.

It is interesting that sales people are updated at a moment's notice for what is sold, pending, and which units are paid for in full.  But, our accounting may in polite terms rot.

Why was the former auditor, SGV, terminated and a new auditor approved.  Unit Owners were never given a clear and full explanation as to why this change took place.  It would have also been appropriate for Unit Owners, members, to approve the auditor in an Annual or Special Meeting.  What were the problems with SGV?  Were the records complete and in order for SGV auditing?

Page 3)  There is a lengthy paragraph on insurance coverage which once again shows how we were left in the dark with policies we have not seen.  We had as required by law two insurers and we now have a "panel" of four.  Is this legal and coverage between them as required by law?

The explanation given seems fine but then when thinking about the insurance some questions arise.  It states CPMI arranged coverage.  But who approved?  Where was an elected Board or legally appointed Directors?  We need all the details and all policies.  Such information would include how the decision was made and who voted to approve.

The next topic on this page has to do with meetings they allow us to attend.  How nice of them.  I find the first paragraph to have a very funny joke:  "As with any corporation in the Philippines, whether stock or non-stock, the voices of the members are expressed during members' meetings."  The problem is that meetings are poorly announced for maximum attendance.  If the meeting does take place walking out instead of a proper adjournment to a future date as required by corporate law is ignored.  After all, why follow the corporate code.  See all my past posts on the corporate code in relation to Soho Central.  I have had Unit Owners from other buildings tell me the same things happen there.  The status of condominiums needs vast improvement and monitoring by the HLURB, Justice Department and SEC.

One month's notice as I had written about in the past is not sufficient.  I had also quoted from someone who had perfect attendance at a complex they managed due to many months notice and an aggressive effort.  As far as a quorum, there is another way.  But why mention this since it will be ignored.

The RAC had a "gathering" not referred to as a meeting and it was not a meeting of the Board so not official.  I have already addressed this "assumed" seat in a previous post.

The reason Unit Owners do not attend is that they are frustrated by illegal voting procedures, walkout by the Board and an antagonistic reaction from the Board as well as astonishing claims as I was told that Minutes were available in the admin office which was never told to me the many times I tried getting them.  So "apathy and lethargy" are not the reason so much as disgust with the unelected Board.

The last sentence in this topic is a distorted view of the Unit Owners who are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  Unit Owning members want to exercise power they are allowed under the By-Laws, Master Deed and law.  Exploitation would violate these and would seem to mimic what is witnessed now.

Page 4)  This page begins with incident reports.  Incident reports?  Futile Action to Make Management Look Like They Are Doing Something Reports would be a title closer to reality.

We have made reports and will now copy complaint forms to appropriate government agencies once they are acknowledged by admin.  I have created a larger complaint form from the small one available for download at the right side of the page.

Here is an interesting story I was told about regarding sweeping into the hallway which we gave up on.  A Unit Owner made a report and the admin supposedly tried to stop the sweeping into the hallway but the Unit Owner would not adhere.  So they told the Unit Owner who complained they could do nothing as I was told the story.  Does everyone feel good about the complaint forms?  I would still take the action; and if applicable for a government agency, get copies acknowledged for submission to the appropriate agency such as a city engineer regarding the elevators.

There were Rules & Regulations established by the developer controlled Board.  We have now had additional Rules imposed by the unelected and illegally appointed Board members who now ask for us to cooperate.  Cooperating with such new rules would be contrary to the law.

There should be no micromanaging and admitting this state of affairs confirms awful leadership.  If the management company is not doing their job, terminate them!  Oh, as for an unseen contract, I would give the party one month to meet all of its obligations for every sentence, every word and every punctuation mark or termination is their award for noncompliance.

There is the comment that the RAC wanted the management staff to be oriented to CPMI policies.  Well it would seem to me given that the office staff is a part of that company that the work is a perfect demonstration of the policies.  What does that tell you?

Lastly, there is a topic heading for Other Matters.  I have a recent post on the mailbox mess.  This was poorly planned from the start.  I would not want toxic fumes and dust in the lobby from such a ridiculous and unhealthy mess ever again.

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