Shenanigans at FOTPIA?
So what is actually going on at the FOTPIA board? Not much in regard to the Two Rivers development but there seems to be a lot of shenanigans going on within the board.
Shenanigans you say? Well, what is going on with the VP not participating at the most recent FOTPIA board meeting and sitting off to the side? I’m speculating that the reason is the VP is being ostracized by the board for voting for the Two Rivers development and not with the board writ large. If this is true it is a tragedy and certainly not in keeping with the premises this country was founded upon. Everyone has the right to free speech and the right to vote their conscience without fear of reprisal. So is this how the “elected” board members act when you don’t do what the clique wants? Are they simply a flock of sheep that are told to vote, speak, and act in accordance with Sue Meyer’s (FOTPIA President) direction? This type of behavior doesn’t speak well for the board and quite frankly calls into question their validity and the validity of the vote that took place several weeks ago on the Two Rivers request to change the age restrictions.
And what was going on with Sue Meyers at the last FOTPIA meeting? She lost control of herself when asked if the residents could have a copy of the FOTPIA bylaws? Really? Are those bylaws that secretive? Stand by, I’m scanning a copy of the bylaws and will have them posted on this web site soonest. As the “elected” President of the FOTPIA, she has an obligation to treat everyone with fairness and respect. Moreover, she has an obligation to be completely transparent.
Transparency? What the heck is that? At the FOTPIA, they obviously don’t know what transparency means – I’ll explain why in a moment, but here is Merriam-Webster’s definition, in part: a : free from pretense or deceit : frank
b : easily detected or seen through : obvious
c : readily understood
d : characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices
FOTPIA’s actions certainly don’t mirror this definition because if they did the residents would be completely informed of meetings the FOTPIA board is having, who they are having those meetings with, and providing the minutes from the meetings to the residents. It also means making the FOTPIA documentation (minutes, covenants, bylaws, etc.) to all residents freely and without caveat. I submit that the FOTPIA has not acted with transparency and they have intentionally withheld information from the residents on the Two Rivers discussions to restrict residents from fully understanding the issue and to skew the message the residents received.
Let’s talk about the vote on the lifting of the age restriction caveat from the Declaration of Covenants that was signed in 2006. How did the board count the votes, validate them, and cross-reference the votes against the verified FOTPIA membership list in 15-minutes? Got me! I submit that no one could do the appropriate due diligence necessary to validate the votes-if it was truly done in 15-minutes we should send them to Florida for the Presidential elections coming up in another week so that we won’t have another hanging chad issue – the FOTPIA board is obviously well beyond anyone else in this regard! Allegedly there were over 100 proxy votes submitted (that’s 52% of the actual vote total: FOTPIA vote was 119 against and 73 for). I use the term allegedly because there hasn’t been full transparency into the vote.
So lets clear up any potential speculation, rumor or innuendo that may exist by having FOTPIA having the votes on the Two Rivers modification to the 2006 covenants inspected by objective, non-partisan representatives in an open forum and allowing that inspection team to cross-reference the votes against the validated list of paid memberships in the FOTPIA. Anything short of that open and objective inspection is causing more opaqueness into this issue and the board’s actions.
The Baltimore Sun ran an article recently on this with a slant towards the Anne Arundel County school system, check it out here. It’s interesting that some of the comments within the article depict that if the age restriction is lifted it would increase traffic in the area. Now I find that extremely interesting since Two Rivers currently has the authority to begin building an age restricted community to the tune of over 2000 homes. The comments within the article say that traffic in the area would increase if it the age restriction is lifted. Really? Whether you have 2000+ age restricted homes or 2000+ non-age restricted homes, the increased traffic pressure is going to be pretty much the same. I find it amazing that people must believe that residents that are 55+ don’t drive? Let’s get real, examine the issue using a modicum of intelligence and then make an informed decision and not an emotional one.
Thoughts/comments?
