Here is a copy of an email that I sent out to the membership today. Most of you have probably already seen it, but for those whose emails have changed since the time that you joined the group, here it is:
Dear Fellow Hawks Nest Owner:
I have just found out that many of you have received a postal mailing from former Hawks Nest President, Marty Shapiro. Contained within this mailing was a letter from Marty, a letter from owner Keith Gilliver, and a short statement from former President, Gary Tucker.
These letters contain outlandish allegations of increases in the maintenance fees of $300 or more, and unsubstantiated reports of the boards “desire” to spend $350,000 or more on the seawall. I have attended, either in person or telephonically, many of the board meetings for many years and this is certainly not what I have heard. If you wonder as I do, and as do several owners I have spoken to, where Mr. Shapiro got his mailing list, email him at email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org and ask him. I have good evidence that it came from an official Hawks Nest source, and I don’t mean anybody in the office.
Five of the current seven members of the board have written a rebuttal to these allegations and have asked me to pass it along to you.
In my last email I listed the candidates that I support in this election and why. I also spoke about our dysfunctional board. These mailings just go to reinforce that appearance, and confirm my support for Jim Dobbs, Lowell Ladd, Charles Lea and Mike Oostmeyer. It is time for the dirty politics and backstabbing to stop.
Statement in rebuttal of the letter from Mr. Keith Gilliver
Recently many of you received a letter from Mr. Keith Gilliver making certain assertions about our current Board on which all five of us serve. We would like to straighten the record out of what this Board has and has not done>
Assertion – Maintenance fees going to $1,000 per week in another two years.
Fact – This Board has not and would not endorse increasing maintenance fees by any such amount. We strive to keep fees as low as possible and this assertion is totally false.
Assertion – Prior leadership has checked with the State of FL about laws and rules governing timeshares.
Fact – This Board has determined that our most recent budgets and reserve schedules as well as proxies used in previous years were NOT in compliance with FL law and have been corrected and the validity confirmed by the Hawks Nest outside attorneys, who are licensed to practice law in FL and who are well versed in timeshare and condominium law.
Assertion – Mr. Dobbs, being an attorney, was not willing to make any legal suggestion and wanted to involve expensive attorneys to do what Gary had already been doing.
Fact – Mr. Dobbs announced to the Board early on in his first term that he could not and would not be giving legal advice to the Board because he was licensed in Ohio, not in Florida, he was not a condominium attorney and it would be inappropriate and unlawful to do so. He agreed to be the liaison to our legal counsel to communicate with them and make sure that they did what they were supposed to do. Mr. Dobbs felt that some of our procedures were in fact in violation of FL law as noted above. Mr. Dobbs confirmed this with our retained legal counsel and has ushered through the changes to bring us in compliance with FL law validated by our attorneys.
Assertion – Mr. Lea was nominated for Treasurer, which he refused. This action does not show best interest in the Hawks Nest.
Fact – As Mr. Lea noted in the Hawks Nest forum on April 13, that he had, in fact, been Treasurer for the prior year and had noted non-compliance with FL law in our budget. Mr. Lea, Mr. Dobbs and Mr. Weidner supported coming into compliance but lost that vote 3 to 4. Since he felt he could get no support he declined to serve for a second year.
Assertion – It seems they are not opposed to a substantial raise in maintenance.
Fact – As previously noted above, each and every current Board member strives to keep maintenance fees at as low a level as possible to keep the Hawks Nest in a stable financial condition. The real fact is that over the past five years our operating expense funds have been depleted to near zero and our maintenance reserves have not been adequately funded as noted in the enclosed President’s letter.
Assertion – At the present, their desire is to spend $350,000 and maybe more on the seawall.
Fact – Again, simply not true. A recent survey done by Coastal Systems International, Inc. has shown that our seawall has serous problems. This structure is a critical component of the Hawks Nest and efforts must be made to keep it sound at the lowest costs possible.
Assertion – Lew and Garry have had an engineer inspect the seawall. This engineer gave the BOD a report stating that he found no reason to be concerned at this time. He suggested leaving it alone.
Fact – What the engineer said was, and we quote, “This is obviously an older seawall that may be near the end of its structural life as far as retaining the soil on the landward side of it.” His conclusion, and we quote, “There is nothing in engineering methodology that can accurately predict the lifespan of this seawall. If a major concrete spalling area appears or a section of the wall fails or settles significantly, it is probably time to do the replacement.”
A more recent study, by Coastal Systems, International, Inc. recommended that the pile supported platform, the boat dock, is in Critical (its poorest rating) condition as it has very advanced deterioration, overstressing or breakage having resulted in localized failure(s) of primary structural components. Unlike the prior engineer referred to above this is a firm that specializes in seawalls and their recommendations state that the boat-dock AND the seawall should both be repaired/rehabilitated. The Board has just received this report and evaluating how to best address these problems while expending the least amount of funds.
In summary, there are many unfounded and untrue assertions in this “endorsement” letter. We, the undersigned Board members, ask you to review the facts. Those of us that are not up for re-election, endorse James Dobbs and Charles Lea for re-election based upon their performance and over the last two years.
Directors – Alden Corley, Charles Lea, Charles Weidner, James Dobbs, Richard Holmes