Cypress Landing Master Homeowners Association Board of Directors
Meeting
June 29, 2009
Bay Club
6 p.m. Review & Comment Period/7 p.m. BOD Meeting
Board Members Present: Charlie Moore, Ron Buzzeo, Dave Grahek, Kathy
Lawson, Mary Lou Sholl
Board Members Absent: Larry Howard, Bill Lord
Others Present: Tomi Moody-CAM; Chris Harris-Treasurer; Secretary; Mia
Ramsden-Secretary
Residents Present: 37
The first hour of the meeting was a review and comment period during
which the homeowners reviewed and commented on the Boards proposed
amendment to the By-laws to change board member terms from two years to
three years.
A summary of the audience comments and questions and Board comments
follow. In some instances Board responses to residents
comments/concerns are noted out of actual chronological order (at the
meeting). This is done for clarity and in these cases Board
responses directly follow a residents question or concern. If
furnished, residents names are provided.
The review and comment period was called to order at 6 p.m. The
Board President alternated those called on between those for and those
against the proposal.
Charlie Moore stated the Board received two resident responses via
email. These two residents were not present; however their
responses were read in their entirety. BJ Reckman, a former Board
member, supports the proposed amendment change. He is convinced
that a three year term would provide a year to get familiar with the
workings of the board, a year to make support contributions to the board
and a year to make significant leadership contributions to move the
community forward.
Jim Kloiber is against the amendment. Why change what is working
and introduce the possibility of unintended, undesirable consequences?
A Board member has the option of running for re-election, if he/she
feels strongly about ensuring the continuity of plans and purposes.
Jim feels a three year term is too long of a period. We don't
really know how dedicated our choices for Board members will be until
after they get elected. If a person finds that he/she cannot
devote the time necessary to be an effective Board member, then it is
best for the membership that this board member leave the board as soon
as possible which is currently after two years, if the person chooses
not to resign before then. Lastly, Jim felt if the new Board
were to schedule a retreat devoted solely to bringing the new members up
to speed on all outstanding plans and purposes (with background
documents), that should speed up the learning curve immensely for those
wanting to get fully involved.
These two email responses are attached to the minutes and can be read in
their entirely. (Attachment 1-Reckman and Attachment 2 Kloiber).
One resident, who agreed with Jim Kloiber, felt getting residents to
commit to a three year term may be more difficult than the Board
realizes. John Moore felt while it is a good idea to have more
continuity on the Board (by increasing the term to three years), he
stated the community as a whole is growing and by increasing the Board
term to three years, we are reducing the opportunity of interested
residents to serve on the Board. He notes from the community
website that current Board members are busy acting as liaison to several
committees and the President is liaison to two committees. John
feels it might be a good idea to expand the Board to twelve members.
This would permit three groups/classes of four board members each who
would serve for a three year term and who would have less of a committee
workload. This would open the opportunity of the members of the
association to serve on the board and it would lighten the general work
load.
Dave Grayhek felt the actual liaison activity by Board members, as
perceived by this resident, is overstated. In most instances a
Board members liaison role is devoted solely to listening to committee
members while committee business is being conducted and interacting with
the committee if an issue needs to be presented to the BOD.
John Moore also felt it might be worthwhile to have a By-Laws Committee
established to review our current By-Laws. John cited the Planned
Community Act, which supersedes our By-Laws, which has a provision in it
that a certain percentage of the membership, by written petition, can
call a special meeting. Our By-Laws do not provide for such an
event.
Dan Bergbauer is in strong opposition to the proposal. He feels if
a Board member wishes to serve more than two years, current By-Laws
provide for re-election. Dan also feels that prior experience
working on a major committee would provide insight, orientation and
experience to prospective Board members with possible Board
responsibilities, knowledge of the various committee and community
activities. Dan strongly urges the term to remain at two years as
the election process is the only check the association membership has
on a board member if it is perceived that the board member is not doing
what is best for the community.
Roger Sims asked where the proposal to change the board term from two to
three years originated and why was it made. Charlie Moore
responded two years ago there were several amendments presented to the
community (all of which failed) and one of these was the current
proposed revision to the current two year board member term. The
current Board, in reviewing the validity of prior years initiatives,
brought this issue back to the community.
A new member to the community stated he would like more voice in the
community and he would prefer to keep the term to two years. He
also supported the residents comment relative to increasing the number
of board members.
As an active B&G member, Dave Wheelock supports the proposal as he would
like to see committee liaisons remain in place with the various
committees for a longer period of time. This would increase the
effectiveness of both Board members and Committee members.
Rich Richman, a Cypress Landing resident here one month, has some
general concerns relating to entrenched boards who serve for longer
terms and who do not serve the community's best interests. He sees
the definite benefits of continuity, but he stated the right individuals
need to be elected
Board member Dave Grahek stated he feels the board term should be
changed to three. Most individuals seeking to be on the Board wish
to involve themselves in our community and make a contribution.
These individuals feel a three year term is not a hardship. This
is evidenced by the fact that most residents running this year for a
board position have indicated their agreement to a three year term.
Dave also made the comment that it might be easier for a resident to
serve for one three-year term rather than two four-year terms should
they seek re-election.
Faith Moore inquired if there were statistics available reflecting how
many prior board members actually sought re-election. Charlie
Moore indicated there hasn't been any board member who actually ran for
a second term. There have been one or two board members who have
filled in for a second term to make up for losses on the board.
(Bill Frances and Bill Lord were called upon to fill in for board
members who could no longer serve.)
Ron Buzzeo, Chair of the Nominating Committee, confirmed that his
committee has met with six of the eight residents running for the Board
and all have agreed to the three year term. Ron indicated he was
one of the driving forces behind extending the board term to three
years. Based on his own experience with previous homeowners
associations and other organizations, three year terms are the norm.
What he discovered is that the first year is, indeed, a time for
learning and to become familiar with the workings of a board. Ron
also feels the role of committee liaison would strengthen if board
members could remain in place an extra year. Lastly, Ron pointed out the
increased term will only effect new members coming onto the Board, not
current board members. This should alleviate the concern of a
perceived entrenchment of current board members.
John Moore made the comment that we (the community) have not defined the
rules for the next Nominating Committee or the next Board in order that
we may avoid some potential problems which might come up. For
example, John feels consideration could be made for various
neighborhoods being represented on the Board.
Faith Moore doesn't feel we need to break down the community into
segments. She said Cypress Landing residents are all the same and
we represent one community. Resident concerns should not fall into
geographic neighborhoods and we should be united as one community.
As there were no further comments, the discussion period ended at 6:35
p.m. and it was announced the formal board meeting will commence at 7
p.m. It was noted a summary of the suggestions and comments will
be distributed to the Board members for their review and comment and
that Board member comments will be solicited as to the validity of the
amendment itself. The review and comment summary will also be
placed on the community website.