SaveTheHill.org

2025 Fee Increase, Another Rejection Proxy, Election Update by Kevin Wine, Sep 28, 2024, 1:26 PM, reply, branch, edit

At the first attempted annual meeting and election on September 17th, about 190 proxy/ballots had been received, which was not enough to meet the quorum requirement. The members present voted to postpone to October 22nd for a second attempt. Under the recently amended bylaws, the quorum at the second attempt reduces to 40% of members in good standing, which is estimated to be about 180. More votes have been received after the 17th, and I understand we are well over the 180 requirement, which means the ELECTION WILL BE TAKING PLACE ON TUESDAY OCTOBER 22ND.

If you have not yet voted, you have less than 4 weeks left. If you lost your proxy/ballot or never received it, this is the time to request a replacement by contacting the management office at 732-463-3434, or sending an email to Clarissa at cgarito@tc-mgt.com and requesting a replacement. IF YOU ARE IN THIS SITUATION, REQUEST A REPLACEMENT NOW!! IT WILL TAKE TIME FOR A NEW ONE TO BE MAILED TO YOU, AND MORE TIME TO MAIL IT BACK, AND 3+ WEEKS IS ALREADY BARELY ALLOWING ENOUGH TIME.

If you need assistance completing the proxy form, here is an example:

https://www.savethehill.org/Election/Proxies/Instructions2024.pdf

You can download the proxy form and ballot from savethehill, however the rules seem to change every year regarding the validity of electronically submitted proxy forms and ballots, and the use of "un-official" ballot and return envelopes. Therefore, I would NOT rely on this. The original forms are at:

https://www.savethehill.org/Election/Proxies/Proxy2024.pdf
https://www.savethehill.org/Election/Proxies/Ballot2024.pdf

And the candidate profiles are here:

https://www.savethehill.org/Election/Profiles/CandidateProfiles2024.pdf

2025 Maintenance Fee INCREASE
-----------------------------
As I have already mentioned countless times, the final end-result of dysfunctional association leadership is increased maintenance fees. Work has begun on the 2025 budget, but the board members have been threatened against releasing any of the proposed budgets at this time. This is consistent with the current boards style, so no surprise there. There is absolutely no legal reason the budget discussions and proposals should be secret, and I should just go ahead and post the spreadsheet anyway, but I'm sure the board leadership will retaliate and use it as an excuse to freeze me out of board information just like Tong did.

What I can say is that the fees are going up. A lot. This has already come up at the public meetings. The insurance premium is estimated to be around $700,000 next year. It was over $600,000 this year. Prior to the building 2 fire and the 2018 slip-and-fall, the premium was around $300,000, so now the board needs another $400,000 from us, which equates to an increase of $60/month. Other increases are also anticipated, which brings the likely 2025 monthly maintenance fees to just over $300/month. None of these increases include the additional NJ State mandated capital contribution increases, which, if faithfully followed, would result in a further 10% increase every year for the next 10 years.

Can the board be blamed for the explosion in the insurance premium? To be fair, the two events that lead to the large insurance payments ($500,000 slip-and-fall and $1,200,000 fire) were not really under their control, nor was the general increase in property/liability insurance rates in NJ. However, how the board handles this crisis IS largely under their control. We cannot have any more property or liability claims for the next two years. All indications from the insurance broker is that this would be disastrous to both our ability to secure insurance, and the cost of that insurance. The steps that need to be taken to suitably mitigate the risk are not fully appreciated. The dryer vent crusade is just one small part, which I still feel is not being handled well. In all the remaining risk dimensions, the board continues to "roll the dice" and hope for the best.

The board continues to freely spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on their capital repair projects. For 2024 I believe the total is approaching $1M (paving, roofing, pool wall, EV chargers). While there is certainly work that needs to be done, especially after 5 years of the immediately prior board president halting all projects, the board should still be making every possible effort to get the most value for the capital repair dollars. They aren't. We are being taken to the cleaners, yet again, by over-priced contractors playing to the personality quirks of naive board members. The most recent example in the very long list is recent proposals to replace all the breezeway steps and railings in the 12 condo buildings for $63k per building. That's another $750,000 project. The board clearly has no concept of "costing out a project" - they just take what they are given and believe it, and ignore the contrary input. I am not saying the breezeway steps and railings don't need work - I'm saying it shouldn't cost $750,000.

If the same board members remain in control of the association after this election, things are going to get even worse. They will continue their resident-hostile, secretive, better-than-us style of leadership. They will continue to manage the finances via spreadsheet with no understanding of landscaping, maintenance, equipment, or construction. The fees will continue to go up, and the services will continue to go down.

Rejection Proxy #4
------------------
The board is at it again, with a surprise bylaw amendment unveiled at the September 4th Special Meeting of the board. There was an internal board email from Trustee Tsacnaris on August 29th, requesting a Special Meeting of the board for "Consideration of By-Law Amendment". The specifics were not clear, but I assumed this had something to do with the election procedures, since that is the only thing I thought would constitute an emergency requiring a special board meeting. I responded that I would support a special meeting if the proposed bylaw amendment related to the election procedure, and asked twice via internal board email to confirm the amendment subject but my question was never answered.

I suspected something was up, but played along, and sure enough, at the special meeting on September 4th, and without any prior notice to me and at least one other board member, the motive was revealed. The amendment was to prohibit trustees from being employed by the association. Of course it passed, but the owners still have to "approve" it, or not reject it. The mailing went out a few days ago, and you should have another stealth "rejection proxy" in your mailbox by now. I assume not enough people are going to care, so this will probably "pass" (not be rejected), but whatever, it doesn't matter. It's just a waste of time and postage, and there are several more productive amendments this board should be working on such as election procedure, electronic voting, and limits on special assessments.

Here is a my copy of their mailing. It looks like you can email the response, but there is no space to sign or date the "proxy", so I'm sure they will insist that you return your personalized original:

https://www.savethehill.org/Legal/2024ConflictAmendment.pdf

The topic of conflicts of interest in non-profit corporations (which we are) is already addressed in N.J.S.A. Title 15A, section 6-8. The statute permits potential conflicts as long as they are publicly declared to the shareholders of the corporation (the association). Section 6-8 also explicitly permits compensation of trustees, for services rendered to the corporation. Our bylaws specifically state that trustees shall serve without compensation, which applies to their role as a trustee. That restriction does not apply to a trustee's possible service outside their role as a trustee. The boards amendment conflicts with Title 15A, section 6-8, however Title 15A does permit a corporation's bylaws to vary the provisions of 15A, but is vague on the precise limits of that variation. The attorneys are brilliant at exploiting gray areas of the law, which is precisely what they are doing here.

What is most troubling is the deception that was employed internally, with information being withheld from certain trustees as this amendment plan was deployed. This is the style of leadership that we are currently under, and they see nothing wrong with operating in this manner. Clearly someone is concerned that they may lose majority control of the board in the near future, and that I am going to get re-installed in an administrative capacity, so this was their contingency plan to prevent that from happening. Their amendment should have been titled the "Conflict of Kevin Amendment". It does nothing to address other possible conflicts that could and have occurred in the past. Did you know that Tong and Linda Zhou were running a side-line property management service for out-of-town Society Hill investment owners?? They have since moved out, but isn't this something that should have been declared?? What about possible "gifts" to board members from various contractors? Shouldn't that situation have been addressed in a "conflict of interest amendment"??

Kevin