Board President Sharlene Shugarman asked me to post David Gardner's comments on the proposed by-laws amendment as a guest blog post here on Inverness Forest Today. Mr. Gardner is the IFA attorney. One of my concerns, expressed in my original blog post is that the board did not explain why they proposed this amendment; it just appeared on the proxy. I want to thank Mr Gardner for addressing this concern and by explaining the reasons why the amendment was proposed.
Throughout this series of guest blog posts on the proposed amendment I have been careful not to add my own comments to those of the guest blogger because I didn't want to dilute their message. Mr. Gardner raised some new issues that, I believe, need further exploration. However, I'll defer my comments to a future blog post.
Here is Mr. Gardner's guest blog post based on an email he sent to Sharlene:
Throughout this series of guest blog posts on the proposed amendment I have been careful not to add my own comments to those of the guest blogger because I didn't want to dilute their message. Mr. Gardner raised some new issues that, I believe, need further exploration. However, I'll defer my comments to a future blog post.
Here is Mr. Gardner's guest blog post based on an email he sent to Sharlene:
Sharlene:
I read the blog postings and must commend Harvey for spending so much time keeping the community informed on current issues. Many of the opposition blogs state that the Board has not stated the basis for its proposal, but I think he has taken the time to do so in his blog.
I don’t know what the “litigious” period refers to. Apparently, some previous board was faced with litigation and felt a larger board better represents the community. While that is certainly true, the fact is that over 90% of the Boards in this area are comprised of 5 members. In my experience less than 10% of the Boards require 7 or 9 members. To require 9 is very uncommon. The Montgomery County Council has 9 members for 1,000,000 residents. I would think that 5 board members can represent 304 homes, and that 9 are not necessary.
Also, while it may be true that more members can get more done, if the 9 members are only serving in name only, and don’t volunteer for anything, it is more of a hassle to hold meetings with 9 members than it would be for 5 members. If there are 5 committed members, they can get more done than you can with 9 uncommitted members. I’m sure you have experienced this yourself.
However, the main response to be given is that the bylaw amendment merely allows, but does not compel, a smaller board. If there are 9 interested persons running for the board then the board size can remain at 9. But if the community experiences a period of apathy, as it is currently, the members can vote to reduce the board to 5 so that meetings can be held and a quorum reached. It provides authority for this if it is ever needed.
Very truly,
David C. Gardner
Gardner Law Firm, PC
600 Jefferson Plaza, Suite 308
Rockville, MD 20852
Fax: (301) 762-1180
E-Mail: dgardner@davidgardnerlaw.com
This message contains information from the Gardner Law Firm, PC that may be privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.
No comments:
Post a Comment