Response to some recent comments regarding SWB's Owners Association

ShaunMc


Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 00:02

Having said that, of course the developer has a considerable investment in the site and a wise committee would do well to take his views and interests into account. However, I cannot predict what the stance of a future Committee, elected by a majority of the members, might be, nor is it prudent for me to pre-empt the decisions of the Committee.



In keeping with the spirit of not lowering the Association to reacting to ongoing commentary, this will be the only instance where I respond to comments posted on this or any other Forum. In future, my communications will concentrate on issues that are related to the interests of the owners as we endeavour to keep the activities of this Association focussed on real issues.



Shaun.

the butler


Joined: 22/06/2007
Posts: 1958

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 00:34

Hi ShaunMc,



I have been reading the ongoing thread about Sweetwater bay with interest. I do not own a home on that site but I do own a home not to far away. You will always have problems if you try to form a self elected committee. Any committee must be elected by all owners. You firstly need to send out a letter inviting nominations and then these nominees need to be voted in. You will need to send out ballot forms to everyone giving a closing date. Only when you have received these back can you then form a properly elected committee. Everyone will then be happy. Having gone through this process, I would recommend that a committee of 5 is sufficient, anymore than this and you will have difficulty getting a majority view. You will need a chairman, secretary, possible treasurer and 2 further committee members. Good luck



The butlers wife

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 02:07

I cannot accept, given others as well as I, have asked the identities of the subscribers, why the question is continually avoided. If there is nothing to hide, why not disclose? I can only assume that [particularly] the British subscribers are those who have a record of rubbishing SWB/RMS, some of whom, at least previously, used the facilities but refused to pay the management charges.

I have been told that SWB are paying their management charges [and I certainly hope I have not been told a falsehood]. If they do pay their management charges, then SWB are entitled to vote, but one has to ask the question, given that SWBOA would not know whether SWB paid or did not pay their costs, WHY the M&As they drafted specifically excluded them from voting? I have not received a satisfactory answer, save that SWBOA were worried there would be a "block vote". In my opinion, if SWB still own roughly 30% of the properties, and pay their service charges, they are entitled to 30% of the votes. TBC

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 02:20

Equally, I have suggested that owners categorise themselves between different classes; i.e. permanent residents, holiday home owners, property [rental] investors, and developer owners [SWB], and whatever other category that can be reasonably established. Then the committee should numerically be constituted as close as possible to the category of owners, as one might assume that each category would have fairly standard wishes that that category would want to represent. Thus it would be possible for holiday owners to vote for a body of holiday owners who would represent their views on the committee, and that number of committee members would be in proportion to the percentage of owners who were in that class. This has not found favour with the subscribers, who either cannot or do not want to see the point.

I don't mind being outvoted when the electorate are fully aware of the facts, and in this case are aware of the likely agenda of those standing for election. TBC

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 02:34

What however I am certainly not prepared to accept is:

a) Memorandum & Articles of Association that are undemocratic in that they specifically exclude an owner [SWB]

b) No way for owners to come to a reasonable conclusion as to the aspirations of the persons standing for election to the committee- the only way to safeguard this is by the categorisation I have suggested and for the committee to be constituted in those proportions

c) Why the subscribers can't be up front and identify themselves- what have they got to hide?



This is my view, it's for others to agree or disagree. As when there were people rubbishing the site, who disagreed with my views, I asked others not to listen to me or them, I suggested that owners made up their own minds. I strongly suspect that a large number of the those detractors of the site are subscribers to SWBOA; all I would again suggest is that owners make up their own minds.

sienna


Joined: 09/01/2009
Posts: 1627

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 09:55

just a point of note whilst the above is your opinion and point of view its not all about one individual, as I have said before if you cant beat them join them, then you will be able to fight for others causes from the inside 'committee' you rocky and mint have a lot to say on your site therefore join the committee!



it matters not whether you live there or spend less time than another, everyone has a voice and are all equal owners, you will also experience apathy amongst some owners therefore if you have ideas and thoughts why not bring them as a committee member then you will bring fair play if there is not already

ShaunMc


Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 17:41

Wrt to message 2: Thanks for taking an interest and giving sound advice. In fact, we have followed the process to invite all owners as you have suggested. Voting for the committee will follow. There is no committee yet and it has to be a fully democratically elected committee. We are committed to that. Shaun is basically pulling this together and therefor cannot understand the obsession with 'founding members'! All owners who have joined the Assoc so far have read the invitation, follow-up letter and M & AoA and are aware of the fact that nothing is set in stone. In fact, Shaun may not put himself forward for election; depending on his travel schedule for 2010. Your suggestion re numbers for the committee is much appreciated. With thanks, Shaun's wife

mint1955



Joined: 30/05/2007
Posts: 988

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 20:29

Hi Danielle,

Can you confirm that 100% of owners have been invited to this association.

Sheila

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 21:09

Yes Arthur I agree that your point re the committee does make sense. Of course the influence of the developer will decrease as the properties are sold. Also I believe the largest group would probably be holiday home owners of differing nationalities. It is also relevent that the residents on site are represented. I could nominate a few members of the commitee at this stage and I hope that you Arthur as an accountant would be interested (not at an accountants normal charge out rate though) I would still like to see some form of control on the number of proxies that can be held by one owner if that can be accommodated, but I guess thats for the committee to decide.

Arthur


Joined: 04/11/2008
Posts: 687

Message Posted:
02/12/2009 21:43

Rocky- fully in agreement with what you say, it is important that all groups are proportionately represented. I don't take the [committee] thing lightly- I have no doubt that this will need a fair amount of time input, which, to be honest, I don't have at the moment with work and other commitments. You are I believe also aware that I have been accused in the past of "wanting to form my own association", which isn't the case and therefore I think it better that at least for some years to come, I do not serve as a committee member, although I wouldn't rule it out when I'm retired. However, I have no objection to being asked by the committee to help answer any accounting problems, or indeed wherever my knowledge may assist.

missymongrel


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 84

Message Posted:
03/12/2009 23:52

I believe SWB should have a vote if they are paying maintenance charges for the unsold properties; however they should only get one vote as I believe that's the same for anyone with more than one property on the site.



Shaun, there are a number of people coming over for new year - why not arrange a meeting with all of us who are there so that we can put a face to the name and hear your opinions and vice versa?



Marisa

mint1955



Joined: 30/05/2007
Posts: 988

Message Posted:
04/12/2009 00:31

Hi Marisa,

I think you will find the SWBOA M&A's state its one property one vote so SWB should have their votes on that basis as well. There are quite a few owners that have more than one or even two properties and they too should have the same.

I am still interested to find out if all of the owners on SWB have been contacted in regards to joining this association as I know of quite a few who have no idea about this association.

Looking forward to meeting you at New Year

Sheila&Phil

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
04/12/2009 00:39

If you want to be a member of a club then pay your dues !



If you want to have a say and use the facilities without coughing up your an idiot !

Blackpoolfan


Joined: 03/12/2008
Posts: 1568

Message Posted:
04/12/2009 01:47

Message 13

You are so right, Myself and another buyer have joined together to try and solve non payment on our site at Lapta. People won't pay maintenance because they say it is expensive yet still want input and want to swim in a clean pool and sit in tendered gardens along with the rest of us that have paid. I say bo**ocks NO PAY NO SAY, simple. Discuss the issues take a vote of the people that pay then the majority win, simple...............

rocky


Joined: 17/10/2007
Posts: 1749

Message Posted:
04/12/2009 09:55

Message 14...so true..name and shame them on a notoce board on site and on any public forum dont them them vote and then if you can acquire their property thro the courts after a few years you get your money back..or do you?

ShaunMc


Joined: 01/12/2009
Posts: 4

Message Posted:
04/12/2009 19:53

Sheila,



Invitations were distributed to 100% of the names/email addresses which were provided courtesy of Mike. I would assume the list was comprehensive and up-to-date. Danielle