2012 Annual Meeting - comments

2012 Annual Meeting - comments

 

(original web post 09/29/12):  I will be posting most general comments here but may also post more lengthy individual posts after this message. As is my habit, I sometimes update old posts adding information. That is why it is important to read the forum going back to the beginning. I would also suggest creating an account for yourself since you would receive regular messages when an update takes place to this forum if you forget to view it.

-- The meeting did not take place due to the claim of no quorum being met by the Board. The secretary was reading numbers and making statements that was little heard and more of a mumble than a clear explanation. I state claim since no evidence was presented.

Someone Ryan overheard said they were told by members of the staff that they did not understand since more people were in attendance as compared to last year.

-- I will be creating a separate message with a scan of a ballot that others had where proxy was being given to the developer without their permission. When they got their ballots they did not understand the acronym.

-- NOTICE: After the declaration of no quorum by the Board several people had remarks. The Board had remarks, too. One was xenophobic towards "foreigners." This is not the first time we have witnessed this and homophobia from those on the Board and others.

Given this and the current announcement by the United States State Department and Philippine government, I ask all Americans and those that may be perceived to be Americans to watch themselves. Take precautions and be prepared to seek shelter and assistance. Due to warnings made to me by Filipinos for being a Unit Owner activist over the past year, I take extra precautions and have alerted many others as to my possible injury.

-- No Minutes were produced except for last year's Annual Meeting in the booklet being handed out. As I had done for last year's booklet and linked to at this forum for download, I will do the same for the failed meeting. The Minutes have a disturbing misrepresentation of last year's meeting that will be discussed once we scan and post. There will also be another message on a review that was sent last year and this year by others. The comparison is striking as to the two different views from the same people.2012 Soho Central Annual Meeting packet & 2012 Soho Central Annual Meeting ballot See newer messages with some Minutes and more postings on the meeting materials. I will be adding more starting this week (10/07/12).

-- Discussion after the meeting amongst Unit Owners involved the scheduling of a meeting that will take place regularly to form a Home Owners Association under the laws of the Philippines. This was not done in the past due to bad advice. This will be a union of sorts for the residential part of the building. But, it will not replace the other concern of the Board and eventual free and independent control by Unit Owners.

-- There will also be planning for a Christmas Party since the management failed to accomplish this task. We the Unit Owners will make one ourselves.

-- While the financial statement will be dealt with in a separate message including its lateness and excuse for moving the date of the meeting, one number should disturb everyone. FIVE MILLION PESOS (5,000,000!) A YEAR for the managing of the building. One person in attendance put the prefix mis- to the work. They have a SEVEN YEAR contract!

Soho Central Condominium Control Techniques

UPDATE (04/10/13):  These are control techniques added to Gramercy's Rules & Regulations.  They seem to learn from building to building how to decrease time spent outside the unit when in the building.

 

From "The Gramercy Residences Basic House Restrictions":

 

"9. SECURITY & SAFETY 

b. The main door of the unit must be kept closed at all times for security reasons and to prevent odour from penetrating other units and common area.

g. Taking pictures such as photo and/or video shoot of common areas such as lobby, garden, hallways, and common areas with facilities & amenities is not allowed."

Will seating be eliminated from the lobby in time after turnover as took place here in Soho Central?

Soho Central Condominium Control Techniques

(original web post 09/30/12):  This may be an accident or planned for control of the building’s residents whether they are Unit Owners or tenants. But, we all must consider the following as we go about the building. A Unit Owner after the failed meeting talked about the process imposed to have forms filled out to remove items from the building. He correctly pointed out that if you are the Owner and do not get the form approved on the 4th floor you are prohibited.

So certain days of the week and nights prohibit Unit Owners even though the item may be noted by the security guards who know you. Why all the control? What are they trying to accomplish at the orders of the management and their ultimate boss the Board?

The above has been a problem for many.

I brought up that I noticed last year a cute subconscious ploy to shuffle everyone as quickly as possible into the building and then up the elevators to what I compared to cells and not units. Guards open the doors and then aggressively point and guide you to elevators opening. The lack of proper seating in the lobby accompanies this process.

It appears that an effort to keep Unit Owners from meeting and even intimidation as a tool is used.

All the following is done to keep Unit Owners separated and isolated: fire drill delayed to after the Annual Meeting; Christmas Party for Unit Owners poorly planned destroying its proper promotion; chairs in lobby limited with a bench removed in the past; no fire brigades as required by law; common balconies & terraces closed.

Please take time to think about this and take note of actions about the building in this regard.

50-year Clause or old-age decision

50-year Clause or old-age decision

All master deeds, I believe, in the Philippines have either a 50-year clause or wording about the building and what to with it when it may need major structural work or demolition.  Of course, will the developers still control the boards they seem never to leave is another associated question.

Someone on another forum and in an email giving me permission to quote him has written the following.  Yes, all those out there that want to work the numbers and write articles about the prices and the future of the investment start your writings!  While 50 years may seem a long way off and many will not be here, your beneficiaries and/or your units as the time line ends will have losses to deal with if the figures are true.

First post:

"I don't know if it is a good time/place to ask.

I read (in this thread or in a discussion which had link to this thread) that 30% downpayment alone is enough to pay for the construction costs, the rest is developer profit.

If the building were build 50 years ago and half of owners voted to bring it down because repair is no more cost effective.

How much a unit owner would get paid for the unit share of the land, 7-10% of the current market price of the unit or it would be much more?

What I'm also thinking the mismanagement is one thing, but if there are some problems with construction like smells from adjacent unit or from waste treatment facility, I don't know elevators may be replaced probably, is it not better to sell the unit and to look for a better one?

Thanks to all posters there is a lot of useful information here."

 

Second Post:

 

"ok i racked my brains a bit more

say in taft i found ad selling lot 2340 sq m for p198M

price per sq m then around 85K

then say they build 24 store highrise with common areas 25%

say 60sq m unit is priced 4.4M

85K/24 = 3.5K per sq m

60 sq m * 1.25 common areas coefficient *3.5K per sq m= 265K

265K / 4.4M = 6%

minus cost of demolition plus profit from scrap, i think overall it will be minus.

so in the case of structural failure (e.g. earthquake) basically condo owners get almost nothing (<6%)? or there is insurance. or natural decay after 50 years the land unit price ratio is likely remain similar, so land price rebate or deduction from the cost of rebuilding will very small.

interesting how much it costs to build using similar calculation given labor cost, total work hours, prices of materials (and a lot of money i guess is spend on advertising collectively by different big developers to keep the prices overblown). in any case it must be very good business for developers - if units are sold, i wonder why some projects i checked are built so cheaply but sold like P110K per sq m.

in 2007 we had built a big house of good quality (full supervision and all materials we were selecting and buying ourselves as needed) the total bill was around P15K ($300 back then) per sq m excluding the land."

 

Third Post:

 

"i found an article:

"Century Properties ... would spend P1.7 billion to build the condominium ... was expected to book some P3.5 billion in revenues from the new building"

so 1.7b expenses 3.5b revenues the profit (3.5-1.7) / 1.7 = 105%.

1.7 / 3.5 = 48.5% of revenue would pay for all expenses.

---------------------------

from my experience if i were building a house again i would add third ground wire and separate wiring for the case of outage when power is from inverter and batteries, spanish gutters were too flat and rusted fast, would pay more attention to how workers lay tiles, etc.

i mean since your developer is still around managing the building they know about the problems in their older projects like electrical wiring too thin and may burn without tripping the breaker, smell propagation etc. and they won't repeat those mistakes in their subsequent projects, sell and buy then maybe not huge difference also as the building gets older and requires more maintenance monthly dues may increase."

 

Message to me:

 

"if you find those useful you can quote those posts anywhere, i was just looking for some answers.

6 months ago i made a 5% reservation for a korean condo inside a freeport zone which i need as an office (problem with internet and i have to work at nights at the current location). it is 50 year + 25 year option on explicitly leased land around $2K per sq m, i wanted to know whether the cost of land is significant, it appears to be not the case. i'm still hesitant whether to proceed or leave it.

i found for example an ad for 82 sq m condo in tampa, florida with garage you can buy now for $102K which was originally $195K in 2006. i have a friend there who owns a house he bought in 2005 for $282K now he tells the price is at best $220K.

my brother in Israel bought an apartment 60 sq m for $90K in 2005 (the market bottomed in 2004 the price then was $85K). now its price $192K.

it is difficult to predict what will happen with prices.

you should be careful, the life is cheap in the philippines, i don't know real property, but i tried to get through smartbro customer support since august, talked maybe with 50 agents and 10 supervisors, even as they are polite, the repeat the same thing all over again and nothing changes, it is pointless. so if you have an opportunity to talk to someone in charge maybe you get more useful information from them."

Media & Government Contact information

Media & Government Contact information

For many perhaps most and if not all problems that are not being resolved at Soho Central and the many other condominium projects, writing to the government and media is essential.  Addressing the correspondence alerting officials of the unresolved problem and cc:'ing it to all media may be necessary given what I have been told as to lost, undelivered and ignored mail by some.  Yes, the level and multitude of diversions and excuses such as sent to wrong person are used as justifications for avoidance to do the work of seeing that housing and building laws and codes are followed.

I will add to this list as I obtain more addresses.

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Justice
Padre Faura Street Ermita, Manila 1000
632-523-84-81, 632-523-6826
632-526-7643 (fax)

Expanded National Capital Region
Regional Director
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
2nd Flr., HLURB Bldg., Kalayaan Ave., cor. Mayaman St.
Diliman, Quezon City
Tel. Nos. (632) 926-1061, 924-6658
E-mail: ebarrameda@hlurb.gov.ph 
Other ENCR E-mails:
Technical: technical@hlurb.gov.ph 
Monitoring: monitoring-adjudication@hlurb.gov.ph 
Homeowners Association: ncrhoa@hlurb.gov.ph 

Republic of the Philippines
Security and Exchange Commission
SEC Building, EDSA Greenhills
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
632-584-0923
632-584-5293 (fax)

Office of the President of the Philippines
Presidential Communications Operations Office
3/f New Executive Building (NEB), Malacanang Compound
J.P. Laurel Street
San Miguel, Manila
784-4286, 733-3676, 735-4840 (f)

Email: op@president.gov.ph

Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Center Building

San Miguel Avenue
Ortigas Center 1600
Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Postal Address: P.O. Box 181
Greenhills, Metro Manila, Philippines
ERC PABX Trunkline:914-5000
General Information: Tel: (63-2) 914-5000 local 114; Fax: (63-2) 631-5816; Email: info@erc.gov.ph
Consumer Complaints: Tel: (63-2) 914-5000 local 149/150; Fax: (63-2) 687-5544; Email: consumer@erc.gov.ph
ERC Website: Tel/Fax: (63-2) 631-5818; Email: webmaster@erc.gov.ph

***

BusinessMirror
Attn:  Editors
2nd Floor, Dominga Building (Annex)
2113 Chino Roces Avenue corner De La Rosa Street
Makati, Metro Manila
817-9467, 813-0725, 817-8407, 812-1691, 813-7025 (f)
http://businessmirror.com.ph/index.php/home/contact, news@businessmirror.com.ph

BusinessWorld

Attn:  Editors

Raul L. Locsin Building I
95 Balete Drive Extension,
New Manila, Quezon City,
1112 Philippines

Trunkline: (632) 535-9901
Extensions: 706, 709 to 711
Direct line: (632) 5359923
Fax: (632) 5359926

http://www.bworldonline.com/assets/main.php?id=contactus, editor@bworldonline.com

The Daily Tribune
Attn:  Editors
9th Floor, GLC Building
T.M. Kalaw corner A. Mabini Streets
Ermita, Manila
523-4634, 523-4673
Editorial:  521-5614

Inquirer
Attn: Editors
P.O. Box 2353
Makati Central Post Office
1263 Makati City, Metro Manila
02-897-8808
02-897-4793 or 94 (fax)

Malaya:  Business Insight
Attn:  Editors
Leyland Bldg., Railroad St.
corner 20th St. Port Area
Manila, MM
311-5324 and 29, 527-7240 (fax)

Manila Bulletin
Attn: Editors
P.O. Box 769
Muralla corner Recoletos
Intramuros, Manila 1002
632-527-8121
632-527-7510 (fax)

Manila Standard Today
Attn:  Editors
Kamahalan Publishing Corporation
2nd Floor PJl Building
Railroad Corner 20th Streets
Port Area, Manila
521-8507, 521-5581, 521-7381 (f)
www.manilastandardtoday.com, mst@mstandardtoday.com 

Manila Times
Attn: Editors
2/F Sitio Grande Building
409 A. Soriano Avenue
Intramuros, Manila 1020
63-02-524-5664 to 67
63-02-528-1729

Opinyon
Attn:  Editors
Unit 2a 2nd Floor Paragon Plaza Bldg.
162 Edsa cor. Reliance St.
Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila
TEL: (02) 214-0766
MOBILE: 0917-8599935
http://www.opinyon.com.ph/index.php/page/contact-us, opinyon.2010@gmail.com

The Philippine Star
PhilStar Daily, Inc.
Attn: Editors
R. Oca, Jr. and Railroad Streets
Port Area, Manila
527-7901 to 15

Soho Central 2012 Annual General Membership Meeting: Board vs. Unit Owners

Audio Revealing the Unprofessional Unelected Board

This is the original web post of comments and links to the recording of the 2012 Annual Meeting.  Many people since that time have listened and a couple dozen told me they were disgusted at the actions of the Board.  I encourage everyone to post a comment on youtube and to download the audio from the other site. This needs posting everywhere to expose the serious situation we face every day.

(original web post 09/30/12 by skyscrapercity.com user ID "sohocentral"):  "The Soho Central AGM Meeting that took place on the 28th of September. I thought it would be a good idea to record the meeting so that I could revisit any details I missed at a later date.

It is a little difficult to understand what was said in the beginning as there was a lot of background noise and the speaker, Benjamin L. Angel, was mumbling. From what I could make out there was a total of 14,846 sqm of delinquent units and 12,233 sqm of units in good standing present while 17,768 sqm was needed for a quorum. Or 229 unit owners present (down from 299 last year) and 383 where needed for quorum and so the meeting could not go ahead.

At this point in time a resident asked the Board and Steering Committee Members for the Minutes from all of the meetings that had been held, a simple request. At first I did not understand why he was so upset, I later found out that in fact several residences have made written requested, all of which have fallen on deaf ears. The Board passed around the microphone from one another in an attempt to explain why all written requests had been ignored and essentially came to the conclusion that all the residence had contacted the wrong people in the wrong way. When the residence wouldn't take no for an answer and tried to explain that they have been given the run around and contacted everyone possible in an attempt to get the minutes, members of the Board turned to personal attacks.

One resident was told:

"We are all Filipinos here, he is an American.... and he wants to feel superior over us? How dare him! Go back to America!" ~ Consolacion J. Tiotuico (6:35)

Even though it's clear he simply became more and more frustrated by the lack of accountability while he never expressed any kind of 'superiority' with his requests being completely reasonable.

When a Filipina spoke out (7:00) and said that it was unfair to attack foreigners and that as a local she has encountered the same problems, Ms. Tiotuico told her that she was in no position to complain as she has caused problems "with your boyfriends security guards because you do business in here' (7:14). At which point the woman became pretty upset, only to have another member of the Board, Zenaida Garcia, mock her by saying "Why are you so offended if its not true" (9:40). This is the same Board member that was offended at the mention of the 5 million PhP Management Fee, protesting defamation and threatening to sue.

I wish I was making this up, but I am still shocked by how quickly members of the Board turned on anyone making requests.

This is disgraceful! It was appalling to witness Ms. Tiotuico and Ms. Garcia speak to residence the way they did. Also, it is equally appalling that the rest of the Board members did not step in. In my opinion these Board and Steering Committee Members are not fit to represent the residence or to be associated with Soho Central.

The full audio can be found here:http://youtu.be/UCPGudoU2MY or here http://soundcloud.com/sohocentral/soho-central-agm-2012 "

2011 Audited Financial Statement

2011 Audited Financial Statement

(original web post 10/09/12):  This statement was within the packet for the 2012 Annual Meeting. I have extracted the statement for its own .pdf file. Please look at it carefully and even compare it to last year's audit within that year's packet I have also linked to below. You may want an accountant or CPA to comment on what they see.

2011 Audited Financial Statement

2011 Soho Central Annual Meeting packet containing 2010 Audited Financial Statement

The 2011 Audit was used as an excuse to move the date of the 2012 Annual Meeting with no justification for such an action allowed in the SCCC By-Laws.

Most if not all documents I have scanned now and in the past were not freely provided by the controllers. Why? I have just been told that a controller's minion has complained that I have posted confidential statements! What? They are given to government agencies and there are no government rules or laws on these being confidential. The individual was asked from what I was told, if there is nothing to hide, what is wrong?

Evaluation is ongoing so these comments may be amended:

- Where are the Minutes & Resolutions regarding Cash on Hand and to which bank(s) the money was deposited and when?

- Considering Cash at the end of the year, there was only P30,000 in interest. This is a very small amount. Why?

- Considering the problem noted in the 2012 Soho Central Annual Meeting packet on page 16 under "Unidentied Bank Deposits," where is this under Liabilities?

- Where are Board Resolutions on advances to suppliers? I was told it is normal to retain 10% until satisfied. But on the sixth page of the audit all that is seen are excess payments with no explanation.

- Would someone explain on the fourteenth page of the audit the paragragh in Note 10 beginning with "The Condominium has two commercial..." This paragraph would not seem to make any sense. Which Minutes & Resolutions would explain this paragraph? Which floor? The fourth? The fortieth? The lobby? The eighth with a unit being used for commercial purposes in violation of the House Rules & Regulations (2.5)? Were these leases of unknown companies approved by the members (Unit Owners) as required under the Condominium Act:

Sec. 16. A condominium corporation shall not, during its existence, sell, exchange, lease or otherwise dispose of the common areas owned or held by it in the condominium project unless authorized by the affirmative vote of all the stockholders or members.

There are more than two commercial enterprises that have been here from time to time. One is called a department and is NOT a department of SCCC. Under Revenue only interest income is mentioned.

Steering Committee ∩ SCCC Board

Steering Committee ∩ SCCC Board

(original web post 10/10/12):  There seems to be a recalling of the 2011 Annual Meeting walkout by the Board conflicting with what I have seen written and what those I know distinctly remember.

The following was written by the entity called the “Steering Committee” whose history I have mentioned from time to time. From what I am able to gather there are only four people left participating in the group. Only one original member is left from what I have been told of the group that was chosen by around 90 Unit Owners who were here at the time of turnover. This group had put out statements from time to time via email and postings. We had only been to one of their meetings with others being held at unknown places and times. Yes, I do not recognize them as a representative for me as a Unit Owner and this group is not a Home Owners Association as would be formed under law.

Here is an excerpt sent in an email after last year’s 2011 Annual Meeting by the “Steering Committee”:

… “Unfortunately the meeting was a failure. The chairman of the meeting, Mr. Rafael Yaptinchay, who is the President of Soho Central Condominium Corporation, also the President of Meridien Development Group, Inc. walked out. We were not able to elect unit owners to the board. There are 7 board members, 3 of whom should be nominees of the commercial podium hence we could elect 4.(1) Mr. Yaptinchay nominated himself, Meridien’s VP for Finance Benito Obra, Meridien’s VP for Legal and Adminstrative matters, Atty. Rufo Baculi, and Rhona Ebuan. In short Mr. Yaptinchay nominated 4 to fill up the 4 available board seats. This started a lengthy discussion on the morality of Meridien voting for the units of buyers who had already fully paid for their units but have not been issued their titles, largely due to Meridien’s negligence and/or endless excuses!.

There are 886 residential units in our condominium. Just a little over 300 buyers received their certificates of title. Meridien therefore held the majority. Mr. Yaptinchay eventually offered a compromise – he would withdraw the nomination of 2 of his nominees. We refused and wanted Meridien to have only 1 board seat – and specified that Mr.Yaptinchay would still be the Chairman. He refused and declared a failure of elections.

Thereafter, the floor became more animated with issues being raised. Mr. Yaptinchay and the Asst. Corporate Secretary, along with the Soho Admin Staff who were present walked out.(2)

Although the meeting itself was a failure, we are still happy that first, we were able to force the powers to call for a members’ meeting and, second, Mr. Yaptinchay gained first hand knowledge of the dissatisfaction of the unit buyers at Meridien.

We in the Steering Committee are discussing our options and our moves. We will inform you in due time of any developments.” …(3)

Now compare and contrast this to an excerpt from their recent email that has no mention of three of their group’s members being appointed and now sitting on the SCCC Board:

… “It’s been almost a year since our last communication with you as members of the Steering Committee. After the aborted Annual Membership Meeting last year, when the meeting was adjourned prematurely due to the belligerent behavior of one of the residents who kept shouting at the Presiding Officer, who took offense at such rude behavior and called the meeting adjourned without electing the members of the Board, we were all at a loss

Before the next Annual Membership Meeting, we would like to update you on what the Steering Committee continued to work for, inspite and despite, distractions from another faction of the SOHO residents.” …

… “V. ON the BOARD

Filipinos who understand how condominiums operate here in the Phils. Would know that the sale of a unit comes with an existing Board to oversee operations initially while the residents adjust themselves to the activities that is entailed in the purchase of a unit.

In practice, most condominiums, benefit or suffer, from having the same Board for NOT less than 5 years from turn-over.

In our case at SOHO Central, after 2 years, we were allowed to meet at the Annual Membership Meeting to hold an election for new members of Board who will then represent the Residential Podium and Commercial Podium respectively.

Those who were in attendance last year probably remember the surprisingly and disgustingly ugly turn of events.

The important point to consider and be mulled over by each one of us is the behavior of the current Board in trusting the SOHO Central residents to elect their own representatives to the Board even only after 2 years from turn-over. It means that we, residents could negotiate with them on any matter if we do it “with honey and not with vinegar”. Positive results can be better achieved with sweet words than swords.

There are some seemingly “crusading” persons who want to lord it over in our condominium. Are we truly aware of their vested interests in this? Are we assured that they will turn out better Board members? Are their concerns sincere or are they simply paving the way for their own agenda that might even be more detrimental to us?”...

Now this is what was written in the Minutes for the 2011 Annual Meeting placed in the packet for this year’s meeting for approval by the SCCC Board.

“However, before voting for the other four (4) director slots could commence, some belligerent members brought out and insisted on discussing issues that could not be resolved right then and there. Hence the Chairman declared a failure of election for the remaining four (4) slots and the meeting was adjourned around 7:15 p.m.”

I would say the change from last year and this year is striking and interesting.


The following are comments from those that attended the meeting and their recollection:

- The Board "walked out because of lies. Left due to being caught in lies. Their best answer was to walk out."

- The Board walked out since they want control for their own ends and need to treat us like children and now the Steering Committee wants us to be children, too. -- George DeCarlo

- Last year was NOT SERIOUS NOR CONSTRUCTIVE. From then on I did not believe they were on investors' side.


Comment notes:

(1) This statement made was confusing and not correct as written. Greenfield Development was given 3 seats exclusively and they may also exclusively make nominations for these as written in the Master Deed and also mentioned in the By-Laws. But, what was not explained and even carried out to our disadvantage last year by a unit owner from the Steering Committee was a call for general consent by the body assembled. The neglected fact is that members (Unit Owners) vote for all nominees. The implication is that no matter who the nominees of Greenfield Development, Unit Owners may vote No and are not required or expected to vote Yes for the sake of voting Yes in order to fill those seats. It is true that Unit Owners by virtue of voting as written in the Master Deed and By-Laws may deny the seating of nominees from Greenfield Development.

The Steering Committee member made a statement at the meeting implying that since Greenfield Development is given three seats that we as a body may just say yes and continue with the business of nominating and electing the remaining seats. This was not a wise move if Unit Owners as a whole are to exercise full powers granted in the By-Laws. In fact, Greenfield Development may also nominate another candidate since only three are to be seats for the residential area of the building.

Additionally, given the fact that the voting procedure being used was one vote per unit, the election was at its root illegal since that violates the Master Deed and law due to this building being mixed use, commercial and residential. Voting in our building must take place by using the area of each unit. I hold that the seats held by Greenfield Development based upon that election in 2011 were illegal. The vacating of the seats should have taken place and all votes made by those so seated are null and void.

(2) A walkout also took place at Bel-air Soho but the frustrated Unit Owners were well advised to stay and continue the meeting electing a Board as they did and are now in the process of taking control of the building. Those trusted to one extent or another to be fully versed in the Master Deed, Bylaws and laws of the Philippines were perhaps ignorant of what the options were and what should have been stated upon the developers leaving our meeting.

(3) I had not gotten any news from the Steering Committee entity until just before the 2012 Annual meeting. The action called for by one in their group was asking those at the 2011 Annual Meeting upon the walkout of the Board if we wanted to sue in response to a Board member’s stating on their way out the door “sue us.” No action was taken for a suit. But the action of the Board was to appoint 3 members of the Steering Committee to the Board news of which was never made in posted memos much less Minutes for the Unit Owners. So the moves and developments were not forthcoming for a fully informed Unit Owners’ membership.