Guest Rocco V. Tricarico, AIA Posted January 9, 2017 at 08:49 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 at 08:49 PM The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) will this week, in a Special Mtg., be confronted by some Board Members that have "changed their mind(s)" on ARC Committee recommendations to allow for three Special Emergency Electric Generator Approvals. Three unit Owners, and the Board, have signed separate 'Legal' Agreements with the Unit Owners to comply with Noise, and other requirements set by the ARC. After entering into said agreements, units have been purchased, major expenses incurred ... and, the Board would now like to be involved in considering new Rules, Regulations and overturning effective contracts with the Unit Owners. My thoughts are that Board involvement in approving future Rules is expected; but, discourage any attempt to invalidate the Contracts. Can and Should the Board persist? Rocco V. Tricarico, Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 9, 2017 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted January 9, 2017 at 09:04 PM I think an attorney should be consulted on the legal aspects regarding these contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Question is from Guest. Posted January 10, 2017 at 12:42 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 at 12:42 AM 3 hours ago, Guest Rocco V. Tricarico, AIA said: The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) will this week, in a Special Mtg., be confronted by some Board Members that have "changed their mind(s)" on ARC Committee recommendations to allow for three Special Emergency Electric Generator Approvals. Three unit Owners, and the Board, have signed separate 'Legal' Agreements with the Unit Owners to comply with Noise, and other requirements set by the ARC. After entering into said agreements, units have been purchased, major expenses incurred ... and, the Board would now like to be involved in considering new Rules, Regulations and overturning effective contracts with the Unit Owners. My thoughts are that Board involvement in approving future Rules is expected; but, discourage any attempt to invalidate the Contracts. Can and Should the Board persist? Rocco V. Tricarico, Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 10, 2017 at 01:54 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 at 01:54 AM 5 hours ago, Guest Rocco V. Tricarico, AIA said: The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) will this week, in a Special Mtg., be confronted by some Board Members that have "changed their mind(s)" on ARC Committee recommendations to allow for three Special Emergency Electric Generator Approvals. Three unit Owners, and the Board, have signed separate 'Legal' Agreements with the Unit Owners to comply with Noise, and other requirements set by the ARC. After entering into said agreements, units have been purchased, major expenses incurred ... and, the Board would now like to be involved in considering new Rules, Regulations and overturning effective contracts with the Unit Owners. My thoughts are that Board involvement in approving future Rules is expected; but, discourage any attempt to invalidate the Contracts. Can and Should the Board persist? In my view, the board can persist from a parliamentary perspective. Applicable law may provide otherwise. Whether they should persist is for the board to decide. I concur with Mr. Huynh that you need legal advice more than parliamentary advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest - Rocco V. Tricarico Posted January 10, 2017 at 04:11 AM Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 at 04:11 AM 6 hours ago, Guest Rocco V. Tricarico, AIA said: The Architectural Review Committee (ARC) this week, in a Special Mtg., will be confronted by some Board Members that have "changed their mind(s)" on ARC Committee recommendations to allow three Special Emergency Electric Generator Approvals (for documented medical reasons). Three unit Owners, and the Board, have each signed separate 'Legal' Agreements indicating acceptance of the contract requirements, such as, Noise Levels, and others set by the ARC Committee. After entering into said agreements, the Generator Units have been purchased and installed, each at major expenses. The Board would now like to reverse their Contractual Decisions, by lessening requirements, and. overturn The ARC's Recommended Approvals to the Board. My thoughts are that the Board should honor their past contractual commitments and concern themselves with Future Rules & Regulations. The Board can control requirements in any Future Approvals by amending the current requirements. Can the Board in this instance 'Move to Ammend Something Previously Adopted'? If so, Should They? From earlier responses, it appears that the agreed advice is that this is a Legal issue, not one with a Parliamentary Solution; but, rather one needing Legal Advice.. Any more opinions? Rocco V. Tricarico, Director Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted January 10, 2017 at 04:31 PM Report Share Posted January 10, 2017 at 04:31 PM 12 hours ago, Guest Guest - Rocco V. Tricarico said: The Board would now like to reverse their Contractual Decisions, by lessening requirements, and. overturn The ARC's Recommended Approvals to the Board. My thoughts are that the Board should honor their past contractual commitments and concern themselves with Future Rules & Regulations. The Board can control requirements in any Future Approvals by amending the current requirements. Can the Board in this instance 'Move to Amend Something Previously Adopted'? If so, Should They? From earlier responses, it appears that the agreed advice is that this is a Legal issue, not one with a Parliamentary Solution; but, rather one needing Legal Advice.. I see only two questions. Q1.) Can the board . . . move to Amend Something Previously Adopted? Q2.) If so, should they? *** A1.) Yes. Whatever is ongoing, and not yet 100% executed, the unexecuted part may be rescinded. A2.) I don't know what kind of answer you want. -- A financial answer? A philosophical answer? A political answer? A psychological answer? A legal answer? "Should" is a loaded word. It implies ethics, right-and-wrong, and judgment. Whether Party P "should" do action X, is a question which need to be filled in on the net result. -- "What kind of outcome are you looking for?" E.g. • If you are looking "to reduce costs", then do X1. • If you are looking "to reduce risks", then do X2. • If you are looking "to increase value", then do X3. Thus the need to know the pros and cons of "doing X" versus "not doing X", in the specific field of interest. -- costs? risks? value? other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts