Blind Voting
Home Owners in Wingspread have been sent a 4 page letter that purports to identify and explain a dilemma about sharing of costs within the community. We are told that in some ways the basic understanding of the conditions under which we purchased our properties was improperly interpreted by previous Boards.
With this we are asked to cast a vote to express our desire about how things should move forward in our community.
Reading the information supplied was so confusing I was left with some doubt about my mental functioning. It was apparent that the regression of my intelligence was more rapid that I suspected. But, after discussing this information with other owners, it seems my confuion was not unique and few could agree on what this communication actually meant and what a vote either way would really set in motion. The implications were so murky that the letter was given to a resident lawyer to review. His reaction confirmed that the issue was so clouded by the letter and ballot that an informed and realistic vote could not be cast. If a significant number of reasonably intelligent owners could come to totally different understandings something is wrong. Most of us feel we grasp the term "status quo" but in this presentation it provides a new level of obfuscation.
We recognize that our Board members are volunteers but we find it embarrassing that they would come to us in this manner with an issue they describe as rather critical. They did ask for this job, after all. If this came to the owners through Horst management Horst must also accept some part in this failure to really clarify such an important matter. Imposing the early deadline, as they did, surely makes it unlikely that members of this association can come to a reasoned decision that is in our collective best interest. It seems time we speak out.
With this we are asked to cast a vote to express our desire about how things should move forward in our community.
Reading the information supplied was so confusing I was left with some doubt about my mental functioning. It was apparent that the regression of my intelligence was more rapid that I suspected. But, after discussing this information with other owners, it seems my confuion was not unique and few could agree on what this communication actually meant and what a vote either way would really set in motion. The implications were so murky that the letter was given to a resident lawyer to review. His reaction confirmed that the issue was so clouded by the letter and ballot that an informed and realistic vote could not be cast. If a significant number of reasonably intelligent owners could come to totally different understandings something is wrong. Most of us feel we grasp the term "status quo" but in this presentation it provides a new level of obfuscation.
We recognize that our Board members are volunteers but we find it embarrassing that they would come to us in this manner with an issue they describe as rather critical. They did ask for this job, after all. If this came to the owners through Horst management Horst must also accept some part in this failure to really clarify such an important matter. Imposing the early deadline, as they did, surely makes it unlikely that members of this association can come to a reasoned decision that is in our collective best interest. It seems time we speak out.