Over the course of the Brentwood Hills HOA’s existence, many people have been improperly fined for various items. Moreover, these fines should have gone through due process according to Amendment 1 of the Brentwood Hills ByLaws, which indicate that all fines should go through a fining committee. According to the current President of the Board, Gary Clifton, the Association has never had a fining committee until one was established in April 2006. Therefore, all fines, fees, attorney’s fees, and legal actions against an Association member prior to April 2006 would be considered invalid and money’s spent to pay for these fines, etc should be returned by the Association to those who paid. – Continued on page 3

Finally! A Newsletter for the HOA Members

I have been researching the events and behaviors of the Brentwood Hills HOA and have found that very disturbing events have happened to which ALL members should be aware. I have decided to put this newsletter together to provide objective reporting on the HOA, share my findings, express my concerns, and allow others to share their thoughts and reports.

I am in no way in at risk to the Association … meaning that I have paid my dues, have not been fined, and therefore, my reporting is objective from the perspective that I have nothing to gain monetarily from the Association. I am a concerned member of

the Association that believes that “questionable” events have occurred that ALL members should know about. I have also started a website (http://www.brentwoodhills.info) for more up-to-date reporting and information for the Association members. This effort has been and will continue to be a volunteered effort. I am not gaining anything, except for to have a HOA that is reputable, fair, and for its members. I am just trying to do what I can to right the “wrongs” that have happened in the past and to provide a level of scrutiny so that these “wrongs” are not repeated in the future. – Continued on page 2

Please Provide Feedback

As mentioned in the article: Finally! A Newsletter for the HOA Members, the efforts behind this newsletter and the website are to provide information and also encourage feedback from the Association members. Feedback can be in the form of correspondence mailed and/or emailed to the addresses listed in the Contact US

section.

Unlike other forums within the Association, ALL comments and feedback are welcome. Additionally, concerns raised will be investigated as time permits and findings from the investigations will be posted on the website along with references in the Newsletter. Also encouraged, is providing ideas for the Newsletter and website. We also hope to have a web-based forum setup in the near future. Web–based forums allow posting of comments within the forum without the need for publishing the comments by a web developer.

Finally! A Newsletter for the HOA Members – from page 1

This Newsletter along with the website are efforts to provide Association members with information in an effort to have a reputable and fair HOA that is for its members. Additionally, this newsletter and the website will be used to provide Association members a place to communicate suggestions, complaints, comments, etc to ALL members of the Association. With Information and Communication, we can make Brentwood Hills a better place. I am not sure of the frequency of this newsletter as it does cost money to print and distribute, but I hope to provide this newsletter periodically to Association members. The website will have the most up-to-date content.

How did this all start? I, like most Association members, received a letter in the mail from John Conley, the Association’s attorney, indicating that there was a member that was taking legal action against the Association and that the results from this legal action, including costs, would likely result in our annual assessments being raised. It seemed to me that this letter may have been a “scare” letter in that … “tell members that they will have to pay more money and you get their attention”. It got my attention and I started to look into things. Shortly after receiving John’s letter, I received a flyer/newsletter from Lewis Larrichia explaining his side to things. I read Lou’s flyer and decided to call him to get further information. It turns out that Lou had reason to fight and did so via proper channels, which initiated mediation. Once in mediation, John Conley, representing the Association, reported to the court appointed mediator that most of Lou’s complaints were valid. Lou settled via a stipulation that Lou felt would enable him to help the Association. However, by dropping his lawsuit, Lou lost all opportunity to pursue a fair election of the Board of Directors of the Association (see page 4 article: “Election … Rigged or Not?”). I am concerned that John Conley represented the Association in a losing cause … trying scare tactics that did not work … racking up attorney’s fees that we are all paying … estimated to exceed $10,000 possibly even as much as $20,000 … I will find out for the financials and report the amount in the future. I believe that the money spent for the attorney’s fees for this representation could have been better spent on items for ALL members of the Association and not just for a few.

Get Your Money Back!!!! – from page 1

Below is the content of Ammendment1

1. Article VI, DIRECTORS, of the Bylaws is amended, by adding an entirely new paragraph fourteen (14) which reads as follows:

14. The Board of Directors shall have the powers to enforce by legal means the provisions of the Association Documents, including suspension of usage privileges for common areas and facilities and the levying of fines against the unit owner for failure of the owner of the unit or its occupants, licensees, or invitees to comply with any provisions of the Declaration, the Bylaws or reasonable rules of the Association, including, but not limited to, violation of architectural control regulations or procedures, late maintenance fee payments and late assessment payments. No fine may exceed $100.00. A fine may be levied on the basis of each day of a continuing violation, with a single notice and opportunity for hearing, except that no such fine shall exceed $1,000 in the aggregate. At the direction of the Board, a fine may become a lien against a unit. No fine or suspension of privileges may be imposed except after giving reasonable notice of at least fourteen (14) days and opportunity for a hearing to the unit owner and, if applicable, its licensee or invitee. The hearing must be held before a committee of a minimum of three and a maximum of five Association members appointed by the Board who are not officers, directors, or employees of the Association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother or sister of an officer, director, or employee. The following

written procedure shall govern the implementation of a fine or a suspension:

1. Notice and Hearing. The party against whom the fine or suspension is sought shall be afforded an opportunity for hearing after reasonable notice of not less than fourteen (14) days and said notice shall include:

a. A statement of the date, time and place of the hearing as established by the committee;

b. A statement of the provisions of the Declaration, Bylaws, or Association rules which have allegedly been violated; and

c. A short and plain statement of the matters asserted by the Association.

2. At the hearing, the party against who the fine or suspension is sought shall have an opportunity to respond, to present evidence and to provide written and oral argument on all issues involved and shall have an opportunity at the hearing to review, challenge, and respond to any material considered by the Association.

3. The committee will vote on whether or not to accept the Board’s recommended fine or suspension. The committee may not alter the Board’s recommendation except to approve or reject it in its entirety. If the committee, by majority vote, does not approve a proposed fine or suspension, it may not be imposed provided that the committee must conduct the hearing and render a decision to the Board within thirty (30) days of being notified by the Board that a fine or suspension is being sought against a member. Failure of the committee to render a decision during this period constitutes acceptance by the committee of the Board’s recommendation.

4. The unit owner shall have thirty (30) days from approval of a fine by the committee to remit payment for said fine. A suspension of privileges shall be effective immediately upon approval by the committee.

The Collection Policy of the Association is in direct conflict with the 1^st Amendment to the ByLaws. I believe that the 1^st Amendment will prevail as the policy is just that … a policy and not part of the ByLaws. Therefore, anyone who has been fined as defined by Amendment 1 that has not had the opportunity to appear before a fining committee has been unfairly treated by the Association and any and all costs incurred should be returned. I voiced my concerns to HOA President, Gary Clifton, via in person discussion and via email. He has yet to respond.

There are several members that have sought the advice of an attorney and the attorney feels that he will win for these members. The attorney also asked to see if others would like to receive their money back … if so, they can also be listed as Plaintiffs on the case. Please let us know via the “Contact Us” methods if you are interested in participating in this case.

Election … Rigged or Not?

Per our ByLaws, we are to have elections for vacant Board of Directors’ positions. Prior to Lewis Larrichia’s lawsuit seeking an election, there has not been an election in years dating back to the turn of the century. What actually happened was until 2004 each year, letters were sent out to Association members asking if they

wanted to run for election to the Board. An Annual meeting was held, but a quorum was not established and therefore an election could not take place. The existing Board then would just continue to act as the Board until the following year.

All Board terms ended on November 30, 2004. Thus, the Board after that was not officially the HOA Board … otherwise stated as an invalid or illegal Board. It can be argued that any and ALL decisions by this invalid Board can be challenged as they were not officially elected nor were they appointed by a valid Board.

In October, 2005, the invalid Board appointed a Nominating Committee, which is to provide a nomination for each open Board position. The Nominating Committee provided the nominations and the ballots and proxy vote forms were sent out in November. An Annual Meeting was scheduled for December for the voting to occur. At the Annual Meeting two individuals from the floor were nominated and voted for. However, since more that 500 proxy votes came back, the floor nominations were insignificant and the seven people (the invalid board members from before) on the ballot won just on the proxy votes. Unfortunately, there were not enough members present to have a quorum and the voting was postponed till February. In February, there was enough members present and the vote was official … the seven members on the ballot were elected.

The problem is that the invalid Board did not follow our ByLaws in the use of a Nominating Committee and prevented members from receiving a fair opportunity to be elected. First of all, Lou sent in a request to be considered for a position for the Board before the Nominating Committee was appointed. Secondly, there was supposed to be an Initial Meeting held not less than 60 days after the appointment of the Nominating Committee where the Nominating Committee would provide their nominations and also where there would be accepted nominations from the floor, which would have been at least 2 and maybe more if the process seemed fair. Then, the ballots should have been sent out with ALL nominees and an Annual Meeting would be held not less than 90 days after the appointment of the Nominating Committee. Additionally, others may have wanted to serve on the Board, but realized that there was not a chance of being elected seeing that the seven positions would have been won just from the proxy votes (from incomplete ballots).

It appears that the method used was illegal in respect to our ByLaws and provided an unfair advantage to the existing Board members to be elected without a real challenge. Moreover, this very Board is responsible for this unfair and illegal election as they were the ones who fostered the process. I have sent the Board President, Gary Clifton, a letter indicating that this is unacceptable (see the website for a copy of the letter) and demanded a new and fair election. I have not received a response. You decide … “Rigged or Not Rigged?” …. Are these people who you would trust to manage the affairs of the Association and your money?