July 14, 2013
The following was sent to El Parque homeowners on July 10, 2013.
CHANGES TO THE BY- LAWS
On February 11, 2013, an Extraordinary Assembly was held at the Anglican Church and approved by the Homeowners. Article 26 refers to the Homeowners responsibility regarding your pets. Please refer to the following changes. (changes in red)
ARTICLE 26. Condo Owners and their Related Persons are authorized to have domestic animals living with them according to the following restrictions:
CLASS “A” Two (2) domestic cats
CLASS “B” Two (2) dogs (maximum weight: 15 kg each)
CLASS “C” One (1) dog (maximum weight: 15 kg ) and One (1) domestic cat
CLASS “D” One (1) dog weighing more than 15 kg
CLASS “E” Fish and small birds in a reasonable number.
Pets that are permitted must not be dangerous or noisy and must be kept within the limits of the private unit. The Condo Owner or his Related Persons must register the animal(s) in question in the Special Registry referred to in Article 21 of these Bylaws. When out in the common areas, domestic animals must be accompanied by a person and controlled by that person with a collar and leash or other means that guaranty the security of passers-by and their property, and that person must, in addition, take care that the animals do not harm anyone or soil or damage property and ensure that they cede the right-of-way to people. Dogs that bark excessively and all animals that are naturally noisy are not allowed in the Condominium. Condo Owners and Related Persons may not leave food outside their house at any time for stray or wild animals, except for birds. In the event of a violation of this Article, the Condominium Administrator will have the broadest authority to impose fines or remove the offending animal(s) and confine them, or to request that the corresponding authorities do so. A fine may be levied for each infraction at a rate of between ten and 100 times the minimum wage in Jalisco. Likewise, Condo Owners and their Related Persons will be financially responsible for any damages to the Condominium caused by their pets. All of the above-mentioned classes of pets are exclusive of one another, except for pets from Class “E” which may live with any of the others. Homeowners, please remember that you are the responsible party for your renters, in case that a renter fails to comply with this article the fine will be placed against your home. If you have any question, please contact me.
El Parque Administrator.
The question raised is "WHY?" Is it that lives of these people are so empty they have to create problems to prove their own existence by meddling with and harassing others?
posted by Anonymous: 1:59 AM, July 14, 2013
Sounds good but to be absolutely politically correct and fair to everyone, we should also restrict possessing multiple dogs and cats of the same color, with diversity reflecting the ethnic color prevalence of the population at large. Dogs should be trained and a certificate of performance be attached to each dog owners file. Home owner fines should be levied for cats that eat neighbors’ birds or fish. It can be dangerous to pet excitable dogs with long toe nails. El Parque should form a committee to compare length of a pet’s toe nails against weight and a fine issued for each millimeter of excess nail growth. A reasonable toe nail length can be calculated as four paw root mean square divided by weight times a "breed factor". The "breed factor" can be set by a new El Parque committee, membership of which is elected by the condominium at large. Hey, let’s spread the harassment power around! Gold fish, of course, can be exempted from the claw length ratio requirement. After all, we're not unreasonable, and it's for the good of everybody. If a homeowner does not own a cat, dog, or goldfish it should be their responsibility to get one in order to further validate need for El Parque rules.
posted by Anonymous: 7:33 AM, July 14, 2013
HaHa At least someone still has a sense of humor! Thank you.
posted by Maryanne gibbard: 5:41 PM, July 14, 2013
That notice was my "aha" moment. I've pretty much had it with El Parque. I have tenants this winter, but will probably put it on the market next year.
posted by Anonymous: 9:15 AM, July 15, 2013
I feel your pain, I really do but luckily you have another place to call home! Unlike those that have chosen to make this place their home. Snowbirds get to impose into our lives stupid decisions that they make on a whim. Stupid decisions that they would not impose upon themselves back "home". Homeowner's who want everything like they have in the US or Canada yet they chose to buy in Mexico and visit for 6 months (or less each year) yet feel they have to rule this place. A country where they think Mexican laws are stupid, not valid and what are valid certainly do not apply to them and they don't have to be obeyed. Maybe they should winter in Arizona where they aren't crazy about Mexicans anyway and they can live according to laws and restrictions that are already in place and they're more familiar with. Why come to Mexico and try to make it a mock-up of cities north of the border? If you don't like the "live and let live" attitude of Mexico, go find another place to sip your "whine" and warm your bodies during the cold months.
El Parque in recent years is has never been short of "aha moments" and surely there are more to come. So hang on, we've learned to expect the ride to be bumpy.
posted by Anonymous: 11:55 AM, July 15, 2013
Not sure why there is so much negativity around the bylaw change - it was voted upon democratically and the majority of the people (some full time and some part time) voted in favor of the bylaw changes. To suggest that other condominiums either in Mexico or outside of the country do not have regulations in place regarding pets is ludicrous. Fortunately most pet owners are responsible, but there are several homeowners in El Parque that seem to want to push the envelope on every issue and think that the bylaws do no apply to them. For those of you who are responsible pet owners, why are you getting your knickers in a knot. Perhaps the ones complaining are the ones who have little or no respect for their neighbors.
posted by Anonymous: 6:07 PM, July 15, 2013
I my self do not have a problem with the leash law for cats or dogs, but my question to the board is why did it take nearly 6 months after the Extraordinary Assembly meeting held back in February of this year to come up with Article 26? Was there some thing that was not maybe the way the board wanted it to be so it took this long to figure out how to present it to the home owners? Sure does not sound good.
posted by Anonymous: 9:05 PM, July 15, 2013
i totally agree with the last comment, also i would like to see the 75% votes, i for one dont believe it.
posted by Anonymous: 11:37 AM, July 16, 2013
Not only do I question the 75% vote on article 26, I question whether there were 75% approval on any by-law change since we were never presented with any proof.
posted by Anonymous: 1:05 PM, July 16, 2013
posted by Anonymous: 1:59 PM, July 16, 2013
Will the next step to irritate home owners be??... "NO babies with vocal cords will be allowed" "NO small children on streets will be allowed".
They call this place Paradise and indeed it is if you just ignore the stupidities.
posted by Anonymous: 2:32 PM, July 16, 2013
Is anyone aware of anything that confirms that the amendments were approved by 75%? Or is it all smoke and mirrors again?
posted by Anonymous: 6:17 PM, July 16, 2013
What's up with Article 26? At the close of this year's general assembly, there was not sufficient representation (75%) to amend ANY bylaws. Now we get notification on July 10 (6 months later) that Article 26 has been changed. The issue itself is not a big deal, but how it suddenly becomes an amended bylaw needs some explanation.
My guess is that some homeowner who happens to have a pet has disagreed with or somehow annoyed some board member. Can't have that!!
Oh well!!!! Maybe the immigration office or the office of criminal investigation can resolve this.
posted by Anonymous: 6:53 PM, July 16, 2013
perhaps you need to read article 74 of the extraordinary meeting minutes from Feb. 2013 , explaining under what circumstances bylaws can be amended and approved. There is a 30 day time frame following the meeting during which votes can still be obtained. So please know your facts before you start making accusations.
Pet owners should consider themselves fortunate to be able to have pets at all in El Parque - we could go the way of Birds of Paradise and ban pets completely.
posted by Anonymous: 7:41 PM, July 16, 2013
Both Jalisco law and El Parque’s By-Laws state any matter considered at an assembly but not appearing on the assembly’s agenda will have no legal force unless approved by 100% of the ownership rights. The published agenda stated only “Discussion, analysis and, if appropriate, approval of Bylaw amendments.” Try to sell specificity of that to a judge. Might as well have listed “Agree with whatever we want and are going to do anyhow”.
The entire text of the by-law Article 26 was not included on either the Extraordinary meeting agenda handout, required press prepublication, ballots used at the meeting, or those sent to owners not in attendance. Omitted were the silly ABCDE classifications and provision assigning owners financial responsibility for fines levied because of renters. The voters weren't even told the entirety of what they were approving. This would seem to invalidate any vote on the by-law. But that is ok folks - just go ahead and vote. We'll tell you later what you voted for after we figure out what we want and how to flim-flam it.
And, where do they get off levying fines? I have yet to see anyone in our administration wearing the usual black robe signifying such authority? Maybe northern short pants are recognized substitutes.
Condo votes are not counted as one home/one vote. They have varying weight depending on relative percent of a voter's property. It is impossible to determine results except by attaching identity to each vote. Each ballot along with its voter identity thus legally becomes a public document. There is no privacy right as accorded to electoral voting. Voting on by-laws is a legislative act and one not to be masked in secrecy.
Rumor has it two homeowners visited the office, requested access to the cast ballets, and were told they were burnt to protect privacy. Destroying public documents? March board minutes reported and released a formal mid-February request from two other owners questioning the entire meeting and voting processes. Their impertinence received no further mention. Never mind, can’t tally a pile of ashes anyhow.
So much for “it was voted upon democratically” as an above commenter seems to believe.
posted by Anonymous: 7:54 PM, July 16, 2013
I am flabbergasted by the above.
(Admin Edit) The blog received the following as an anonymous comment on 8:04 AM, July 18, 2013 and inserted its content here.
"The quoted piece did not go thru will my ACCKK! response. It was the bit ab pet owners are lucky the Board didn't ban pets completely!
It appears a commenter was attempting to either enter an internet link or paste some material from a forwarded email message. We have no way of assuring commenters' identities and communicating directly with them. The commenter is welcome to enter the full desired TEXT in a new comment.
posted by Anonymous: 9:43 AM, July 17, 2013
Well, I'm not really surprised by the machinations surrounding this vote. It's pretty much in keeping with the extraordinary and bizarre actions of this Board over the past while. Given the Administration's history of targeting and persecuting individual homeowners for failure to accept their "party line", I can only wonder who they now intend to target with the so-called amendments to Article 26.
The "burning of the ballots" is a particularly nice touch, though! Sheesh.
posted by edp: 7:31 AM, July 18, 2013
To the anonymous poster that suggested reading Article 74 and getting facts straight. An awareness of Article 74 does not explain how or whether sufficient votes were gathered within 30 days after the assembly to allow passage of bylaw amendments. It simply states how it is allowed to be done. Homeowners currently have no access to ANY documentation that it was done or done in a proper and timely manner. Perhaps YOU should read Article 81 which deals with power of attorney (proxy) forms and how they must be prepared, submitted, and retained. It states that these forms must be annexed to the attendance list. Homeowners have a right to see both the attendance list and the annexed proxy forms.
Rumor has it that both the attendance list and the proxy forms were destroyed. If this nasty rumor is not true, all of this confusion could be eliminated by producing them and making them available to the homeowners. If this nasty rumor is true, the homeowners deserve some explanation.
posted by Anonymous: 10:28 AM, July 19, 2013
Sad to say but it is time that the owners of E. P. woke up and saw the writing on the wall. It has been there for some time but we keep hearing that we are in paradise, Well Mexico is, but not EP. As long as we have a board who think they can say and do anything that pleases them. At this point the best thing that all of the board can do to save some face is to resign, and I don't mean that to be sarcastic, but it was mentioned at one time earlier in one of the Blogs and now it is really over due.
posted by Anonymous: 6:49 PM, July 19, 2013
Were the votes, proxy forms etc. not turned over to a Mexican lawyer for verification and tabulation so as to ensure the proper percentages were attained. Are you suggesting some impropriety by the MEXICAN lawyer. I don't think that in the usa or canada that any individual is privy to seeing how someone voted, so why would you think that you should be entitled to see how your neighbors in El Parque voted. If you were so concerned about possible miscounts, why did you not volunteer for a position as a scrutineer.
posted by Anonymous: 7:55 PM, July 19, 2013
If you have ever checked but guess who picks the scrutineers, not you and me, I am not trying to pick a argument with anyone but I really feel that it is way over dew,and let us start to point the fingers were they really belong and STOP making excess for our poor board that we picked.???
posted by Anonymous: 8:52 PM, July 19, 2013
Unfortunately some attorneys are not concerned about detail if the client isn't concerned about detail. They just do what is asked of them and it's not their problem if the ballots don't conform to specific requirements. Once the ballots are burned it's a mute point unless one choices to push the point legally. Then a judge would most likely require the Admin. / BOD to produce the official ballots to be re-calculated and scrutinized. Ballots and proxies are legal documents and are suppose to be kept as part of the permanent records of EP for reasons exactly like this. Burning documents may at worst be illegal; at minimum invites suspicion of wrong doing.
posted by Anonymous: 10:46 PM, July 19, 2013
Before you know it, elections will be upon us and some positions will be open, so this is your opportunity to garner support prior to the elections and get on the board(if elected) and attempt to correct what you see as wrongdoings, illegal activities, etc. You can sit on the sidelines for only so long, complain about an inadequate board as you see it, condemn everything the Board does - so perhaps you need to put a new spin on your approach(perhaps a nore positive one) and you may stand a chance of being elected and then you too can be abused, maligned, misquoted, etc.
posted by Anonymous: 8:15 AM, July 20, 2013
I certainly believe that by the next AGM people will be ready for some changes in the Administration and the operation of El Parque.
posted by Anonymous: 10:08 AM, July 20, 2013
I certainly hope so
posted by Anonymous: 12:00 PM, July 20, 2013
I for one would vote to NOT renew our Administrator's contract, that is IF we have one..
A good Managing Co. would do a better job and I don't think would be doing Visa work on our time our office equipment etc or was that in the contract?? Did I not read that a client was impressed with the "office" in EP?
A good idea would be to hire a Security Co. not one that allows a guard to sleep all night while on duty. In that case one guard would be enough. RIGHT?
posted by Anonymous: 1:40 PM, July 20, 2013
It's painfully obvious that "ACCKKK" doesn't seem to care if the BOD operates according to the By-laws as long as everyone else does. Why is it that people view the BOD as anointed by God and can do no wrong? Their main job is to oversee that the Administrator does her job. Instead we have the Board doing the Administrators job and giving the Administrator hefty raises to do very little for El Parque but operate her private business out of our office.
Why do people even bother to respond to comments on this Blog when they have no idea what the by-laws are and are too placid to bother reading them? It's easy to understand why this blog operates; because it's the only forum that questions the BOD's actions. The BOD is very much aware that most people are content so long as someone else is managing the daily operations of El Parque so they don't have to. That way those that simply show up to enjoy the place and aren't bothered by the internal matters or politics of the place but simply do the basic requirement of attending the AGM. Many of whom would cut off your right arm if it meant the AGM did not last more than 3 hours. This crap about the Board members running El Parque only pits homeowner against homeowner!
It's a little too late to change much about the pet by-law because the builder and all previous administrations have not enforced that by-law since the first house went up! To attempt to chastise or fine owner's who were allowed to buy homes and move into EP with pets that exceed number and weight limits is crazy. No one is going to give away a family pet that they were allowed to move in with. Pet owners consider them furry family members and world war III would break out. You might as well be asking someone to give away a grandchild. Yes, pet owner's love their pets that much. You also might consider that if you ever choose to sell your home how these restrictions would eliminate a large number of potential buyers. Actually that is exactly why the whole pet restriction by-law was ignored in the first place. Just as the builder ignored his own restriction of not allowing 2 story homes in the interior of EP. But.. he wanted to sell lots and build houses therefore if a potential buyer insisted on a 2 story home on a 1 story lot they got exactly what they wanted and to hell with his own restrictions. It's a good example of the fact that you can't have things both ways so be careful what you ask for and whom you vote for.
posted by Anonymous: 2:58 PM, July 20, 2013
Although this discussion has moved into another direction, I have something to add to the issue of restrictions on pet ownership. I had the opportunity to review the relevant section of a recent English language publication on Jalisco Condo Law. I was surprised to find that the Mexican Constitution includes animal ownership as a basic right. In Canada and the U.S., it is legally possible to restrict or ban pet ownership in a condo situation, however in Mexico such restrictions or outright bans are legally unenforceable. The proviso is that Jalisco condo law does permit by-law rules pertaining to the control of pets, such as requiring them to be leashed in common areas.
Clearly, the Board and Administrator are, yet again, unaware of the relevant law. In summary:
1. Article 26 in its current form is unenforceable with respect to the limitations on the number of pets.
2. The so-called amendment to Article 26, regarding the imposition of "fines", is illegal/unenforceable since the Jalisco civil code does not expressly provide the Board with the jurisdiction to impose punitive measures or fines on their fellow homeowners. Recourse is to the courts in the event of a dispute.
3. There is every indication that the Extraordinary vote was invalid because of an insufficient number of votes. In order to counter that presumption, the Board would need to show that there were sufficient votes to pass the various amendments. Having destroyed (?!) the ballots and proxies, the Board is now in the position of being unable to rebut that presumption and demonstrate that the vote was legally valid.
Obviously, at some point, Article 26 would need to be rewritten to bring it into compliance with Jalisco condo law. But, for the time being, I suggest we just ignore the "pet restriction" aspect and ignore the so-called amendments establishing punitive "fines". What to do regarding the invalid vote? Well, we'll see ...
posted by edp: 3:29 PM, July 20, 2013
While we at the different Articles why not check Article 11 ?? How many of you knew about this bylaw. ??
posted by Anonymous: 5:07 PM, July 20, 2013
Do the Administrator and the board expect anyone to believe that they destroyed the ballots and proxies to protect the privacy of homeowners?
That is not only a ridiculous assertion but is, in my opinion, an insult to the intelligence of every homeowner. This year the board members were elected by acclamation. Privacy was not an issue. My reply to the poster that stated votes on legislative issues should be secret is that that is nonsense. The voting records of our legislators in congress are public record. Why would anyone care or wish to know how any specific homeowner voted on any item at the AGM. It is, however,critical to know whether the votes and proxies were properly processed and whether the accumulation of the votes was sufficient to justify the actions taken. I would like to know what criteria or method was used to significantly increase the number of AGM attendees long after the AGM was over.
I don't necessarily question the results reported by the scrutineers. I question the criteria the scrutineers were directed to use to reach the desired percentages of attendance. 75% of 112 homes is 85 but 85 supposed attendees does not equate to 75% of the voting rights.
ONLY by using the attendance list AND the valid proxies can the true percentages be calculated. Each homeowner and co-homeowner has a different percentage of voting rights. Simply taking a head count does not give you an accurate percentage of voting rights. I have identified all the homeowners who, to the best of my knowledge, either did not attend the AGM or were not even in the area at the time of the AGM. I added all their individual ownership percentages and they amounted to over 34% of El Parque's total ownership. That would render the 75% claimed by the administration extremely difficult to achieve. I cannot claim my figures are accurate because I had no way to take proxies into account. I admit there may have been some proxies but since that information has not been made available for review, no one will ever know the truth. All the suspicion and conjecture aside, the board, for whatever reason, has evidently chosen to make that data impossible to get. I would like to believe that even the most adamant "I don't want to hear anything negative" person would at least be curious.
Personally, I have no particular problem with the bylaw changes that supposedly passed. However, I am very concerned with whether legal procedures were followed to get them passed. If ANY board is allowed to manipulate or misrepresent vote counts and then destroy the evidence, there are no limits to what they can do. I think that setting a precedent for destroying ballots and proxies is very, very dangerous.
posted by Anonymous: 6:36 PM, July 20, 2013
According to Garry Musgrave who has studied the Jalisco Civil Condo Law, and wrote a couple books on the subject is of the opinion that no homeowner can be denied a vote at the AGM for any reason. The fact that the Board has denied homeowner's that right is actually cause for the entire meeting to be nullified. It's just an example of the problems uninformed people can cause when they try to operate a place like this by the seat of their pants. Simply another very good reason to hire a professional Administration Firm and keep the minimum number of BOD members to "oversee" the Administration, not run it.
posted by Anonymous: 9:55 PM, July 20, 2013
posted by Anonymous: 6:42 AM, July 21, 2013
One never head any talk of hiring administration firms prior to this Board being in place. Why is that and why is there such a sense of urgency now. Happened to be in attendance when one firm was brought in to be interviewed and they were an embarrassment - they spoke no English, had no understanding of condominium law and all they were going to do was subcontract out work and charge El Parque higher fees to do so. It's difficult to even find a lawyer who specializes in condominium law and is not in conflict with another lawyer specializing in condo law. What makes you think that an administration firm knows anything about the Jalisco code and the laws. For those of you who seem to have this vendetta with the current administration and board, have you taken the time to search out administration firms and if so, what are the results of your searches. Why are you not sharing that information with the residents - again do something productive.
posted by Anonymous: 11:23 AM, July 21, 2013
Yes. I, and others, have commented elsewhere on this blog about the advisability, and even necessity, of bringing in a Management company and putting in place a professional Administrator who knows what she or he is doing, understands Jalisco condo law and fully understands the role and duties of the Administrator in a condo the size of E.P. In fact, most condos in Canada and the U.S. use professionals to manage their condos in order to avoid the types of problems we continue to see with E.P.'s current Board. It is, for example, utterly absurd that the Board claims to have destroyed the only useful and valid evidence of the vote being discussed in these comments; a PROFESSIONAL Administrator would never sanction that sort of nonsense since it clearly allows for a perception that the "results" of the vote are fraudulent. Changes to the administrative structure of E.P. is long overdue.
posted by Anonymous: 11:24 AM, July 21, 2013
I fully AGREE!
posted by Anonymous: 12:42 PM, July 21, 2013
I would like to refer to the e-mail who wrote about never hearing about hiring a Administration company? This has been written about many times and we agree this is the way it should go, why keep on paying our Administer 15% for doing her own work? Sounds like a board member or one who came from another cond. and has hopes of moving up the ladder, good luck.
posted by Anonymous: 4:55 PM, July 21, 2013
I also whole heartedly AGREE with "Anonymous: 11:24 AM, July 21, 2013".
Lets just give every BOD we've had the benefit of doubt that all have tried to do things the right way but every one has fell short of the mark. Lets face it, the atmosphere in EP has continuously gotten worse with each new administration. I see part of the problem is that as soon as we get new residents in EP we elect them to the BOD. They barely find their way around town and we barely know them before we put them in charge of our community. We continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Isn't it time that we learn from the past instead of repeating it? Just because an Administrative firm speaks with broken English, much like our broken Spanish, does not mean they don't know how to manage a condo in their own country. We would not hire a Brazilian, new to the US or CA to manage a condo north of the border so why should we have transplants and snowbirds running EP?
I know your thinking, we have a Mexican Administrator. Yes but.... we have one who knows nothing about condo administration except what some well intentioned yet uninformed gringo board members told her and one that is more than happy to acquiesce most of her responsibilities to those over-eager board members. Why don't we try something we haven't tried before to see if will improve the functionality and social harmony in El Parque?
posted by Anonymous: 5:28 PM, July 21, 2013
While we are at it, does anyone know if the gas line from the gas tank (in back of the club house) to the bar b-q SAFE? was a permit provided by the city? was it buried deep enough? was it done by professional workers? Has anyone used it?
posted by Anonymous: 6:41 PM, July 21, 2013
Would like to just refer to the person who happened to be in attendance when a outside company came in to be interviewed to run the administration duty's of EP, First why did the board members even allow you to be present and who was there with you plus why was it an embarrassment because they did not speak English, do you forget what country you are living in? Can you or any of the other so called board members speak just a little Spanish?
posted by Anonymous: 7:19 PM, July 21, 2013
in response to this last comment, it was John (H) [admin edit: full name blanked to mask internet identity] and the HOC committee that organized the meeting with the outside administration company - it had nothing to do with the Board and in fact some Board members were present at that meeting. As to the company not speaking English - how many of you speak enough Spanish well enough to resolve conflicts, get answers to questions, etc. It would be very frustrating to say the least for the majority of homeowners. The more important issue was the lack of knowledge this company had with respect to condo management. They managed one small condo and had no experience managing a development the size of El Parque. Certainly it is important to be aware of the regulations governing a condo, but far more important is that we have a Board that is fiscally responsible, manages our money well and ensures that there are very few special assessments. At this point our Board has demonstrated that they are doing just that and for most people that is the bottom line. Most of this dissension stems from personality clashes, bruised egos, power struggles. Keep in mind too, that it is easier to vote a Board out than it would be to fire an incompetent administration company. Can you imagine the bill for severance if that were the case.
posted by Anonymous: 6:40 AM, July 22, 2013
Is the board of that new next door durado condo still in jail or not?
posted by Anonymous: 8:02 AM, July 22, 2013
I suspect that there may be more than one Management company in the area. There's also a possibility that a little "lateral thinking" might be useful ... there could be another way to accomplish the same thing provided, of course, that the persons who comprise the Board are open to ideas for improving the administration of EP. Regarding the "everything is dandy" comment, above ... well, I, for one, disagree.
posted by edp: 2:11 PM, July 22, 2013
To the "before you know it elections will be upon us" poster. It is, indeed, a problem being a board member and it will continue to be a problem until board members begin to understand what their position DOES NOT ALLOW according to our bylaws, both original and supposedly revised. Every board member for the past 5 years has perverted and exceeded the duties and authorities of their positions as specifically described in the bylaws. The reason the board members have been criticized and reviled by many is that they have, admittedly with good intentions, performed duties that homeowners were never intended to do and that they did not know how to do. They obviously have no idea what the bylaws say or they would know that the Administrator and NOT THE BOARD is supposed to run El Parque. Since they don't know what they're supposed to be doing, they, naturally, do it wrong. When people do things wrong, they are open to and deserving of criticism. It's no big mystery here. The job of the board - the ONLY job of any member of the board is to monitor the Administrator and her staff and provide her with what she needs to run El Parque. They do not make rules, they do not initiate projects, they do not have anything to do with the finances or preparing the budget and they definitely do not publicly and intentionally malign and attempt to punish homeowners for ANY reason.
I, personally, do not want to be a board member for any reason. Been there, done that. Anyone who might consider becoming a board member should wait until the perceived procedure for being a board member matches that described in the bylaws. As long as prospective board members are motivated purely by a lust for power and recognition, they will do it wrong and they will be attacked for doing it wrong. Turn El Parque over to the Administrator and her staff as the bylaws specify and reasonable and capable board members and prospective board members will be plentiful. Try to assume the authorities and duties of the Administrator and her staff and you will pay a very high price for your power lust and El Parque, as a whole, will suffer. Gringo homeowners may live or party in Mexico, but they don't know Mexican laws, Mexican customs, Mexican business ways, or even Mexican language. They simply cannot run a condominium in Mexico. Do you suppose that's why the Mexican bylaws assign all the duties to a Mexican Administrator?
posted by Anonymous: 5:44 PM, July 22, 2013
Every board member for the past 5 years has perverted and exceeded the duties and authorities of their positions as specifically described in the bylaws. Now now, if that is the case I think you need to include all board members from the very inception of El Parque . Prior to 5 years ago, no-one was even aware of the Jalisco code or the condominium laws, so please don't go blaming the board of the past 5 years for everything.
posted by Anonymous: 8:05 PM, July 22, 2013
re Mexican Administrator" and or mexican administration company, why are you not going out and interviewing different people and different companies so that you can present this information to the community. Seems to be alot of talking but no action taken -- suspect you may not speak Spanish and are unable to communicate with these companies. For "been there done it" individual, you seem to do alot of armchair criticising - how about giving people some solid /factual information.
posted by Anonymous: 8:14 PM, July 22, 2013
In reply to the two most recent blogs, I had not intended and do not intend to start some kind of back and forth debate. However, I think it is only fair that I answer your two posts. It was not my intention to lay all the blame or criticism on the boards of the past 5 years. I am not only convinced but well aware that boards prior to that time were guilty of the same damaging over-enthusiasm but your assertion that those boards didn’t know about Jalisco law or condominium law or the bylaws is inaccurate. That was, in fact, more unforgivable than if they had not known. Five years ago El Parque had a professional Mexican Administrator who was doing his best to assume the bulk of responsibility for managing El Parque. That year several of the board and committee members and several well-intentioned homeowners decided that they knew more than our Administrator and made it impossible for him to do his job. That Administrator resigned. In his resignation letter he stated that he was resigning because he was not being allowed to do his job and some of the board members were exceeding their duties and authorities as stipulated in the by-laws by attempting to perform duties that were clearly his in accordance with the by-laws. It was at this point that it seemed to become policy that future boards would continue that practice of not allowing Administrators to function as Administrators.
The point I wanted to make was not to single out any particular boards but to stress the current need to correct those mistakes and allow the Administrator to run El Parque. I stand justifiably reprimanded but if my post brings realization to some that allowing board members to continue to do the Administrators duties is a bad idea, I am pleased.
In response to your queries about why I am not personally seeking out Administrator or Administration company candidates, I don’t know what to say. I am neither authorized nor qualified to conduct such interviews. Frankly, it ain’t my job and no one would want it to be my job. I suspect your suspicion is correct. I do not speak fluent enough Spanish for that task. I have distributed the only solid information that matters in this case. The by-laws speak for themselves regarding the duties of the Administrator and board members. I am not convinced that our current Administrator is up to the job but I am convinced that she should be performing ALL of her duties until someone more talented than I am can find a new Administrator or verify that our current Administrator is capable.
posted by Anonymous: 10:06 PM, July 22, 2013
Interesting, and increasingly focused, discussion. There seem to be some condos in the area that have succeeded in setting up a more successful, and legally appropriate, management structure. I wonder if their Administrators could offer some advice?
posted by Anonymous: 9:08 AM, July 23, 2013
It was agreed back in 2012 there would be meetings with homeowners every third Monday of each month for general discussion. The first meeting was June 2012. The homeowner's wanted to discuss the Board's duties and responsibilities. Since then there has never been another meeting scheduled, it would seem that was NOT a topic they wanted to discuss.
posted by Anonymous: 10:42 AM, July 23, 2013
Since the Administration can show no documentation that any of the by-law changes legitimately passed and have destroyed any possible way to prove the number of votes, we actually need to have a "do over". That way votes can be properly obtained and documented, accurately tabulated according to property rights and correctly stored in the official records of El Parque. See, it's not so difficult. AGM's seem to roll around fairly quickly.
posted by Anonymous: 11:02 AM, July 23, 2013
Yes, I agree. I can't see how the vote can be salvaged given the destruction of the ballots and the refusal to allow at least one homeowner to vote.
posted by Anonymous: 12:59 PM, July 23, 2013
If El Parque’s mannerisms among the condo world may be likened to those of an upstart teenager, those of La Floresta, our western condominium neighbor, would seem to have grown to more thoughtful adulthood. Its homes number about four times those of El Parque. The north of the carretera part is fenced and outfitted for gates seldom closed and guards seldom seen. La Floresta does have its own mobile police force. At one time the northern part harbored a now long gone full facility hotel. The lower extent stretches from carretera to lake shore with no fencing or guards but mixed with some businesses.
It is difficult if not impossible to know whether one is in lower La Floresta, one of its nestled or adjoining businesses, San Antonio, or Ajijic. People in those just kind of go where they wish when they wish without permits, barriers, or boundary awareness. Evidently La Florestians are less worried where their condo ends and perceived strangeness of Mexico begins. I know they accepted cash in their office and maybe only that. The El Parque professional administrator who quit us in disgust held the same position at La Floresta.
A resident informed me their board consists of a president, vice president, secretary and treasurer with three year term limits. Those can run again for the same position after vacating it for one year. There are also five directors and three commissioners, the latter serving as advisors. One of them is a notario. Only three members of the board can be non Mexican and those are required to be conversant in and able to read and write Spanish.
I do not know how they classify and agonize over pets and animals but lower La Floresta does include a straight-away horse track and rental. I have never seen anyone picking up after them.
posted by Anonymous: 2:16 PM, July 23, 2013
In my view, this train of comments is really the best so far ... has narrowed the "issues" down to the fact that the Administrator is not doing her job and the current Board is drastically exceeding its jurisdiction under Jalisco condo law. One example, among many, is that I've never seen anything in the by-laws etc. indicating that the Board is responsible for providing (supportive) residents with an "all inclusive resort experience" ... if residents want to party, it's up to THEM to get themselves organized. The Board of Directors is not supposed to be the overall "Social Committee" for EP. Nor is it their role to "punish" homeowners who fail to appreciate their idiocy.
posted by Anonymous: 2:47 PM, July 23, 2013
for your information, La Floresta is not a condominium, rather a Fraccionamiento.
posted by Anonymous: 5:50 PM, July 23, 2013
for your information, then maybe we should become one of those things and grow up too.
posted by Anonymous: 7:22 AM, July 24, 2013
I have been reading this blog and feel I must say how sorry we are that such a change has taken place in El Parque. Over the years my husband and I have often attended parties in beautiful El Parque. We enjoyed the dinner/dances put on by the residents, the friendly atmosphere, the wonderful times and memories. We now find that the Friday night get together does not have the same touch. I understand that some residents object to the way the people on the board have taken over these events. I can only ask "why was this done? Is it that El Parque needs to use social activities to bring in money?
posted by Anonymous: 7:56 AM, July 24, 2013
Forgive my ignorance, but I'd like to know what a Fraccionamiento is? The admin. set up seems complicated, but is there something there worth considering importing to EP?
posted by Anonymous: 10:37 AM, July 24, 2013
Does anyone have information about how other communities that are condos organize themselves? Is there anything we can learn?
posted by Anonymous: 6:56 AM, July 25, 2013
To anonymous 7.56 AM, July 24th.
I don't know whether El Parque needs money. We're told everything is fine financially, yet we have no idea where the profits go that are generated by the sale of food and alcohol at the club house, especially since the improvements were completed. Homeowners pay the utilities for the club house, yet we were never asked to vote on whether we wanted an organized bar/restaurant on site. The Board has pretty much taken control of all social activities within El Parque held at the clubhouse and members of the Board seem to be the only ones who know where the money goes.
posted by Anonymous: 4:03 PM, July 25, 2013
Funny Money post comments of 5:59 and 10:08 PM March 20 answer the money oriented questions raised above.
posted by Anonymous: 8:49 PM, July 25, 2013
I’d like to respond to the Blogger from July the 24th about income and accountability from Friday night Happy Hours. Supposedly the funds were used for the acoustic improvement of the clubhouse, the new 3 compartment sink and the new tiled BBQ area with grills. We, as homeowners, are all part owners of our common areas as stated in our deeds yet we have never been asked for permission to do those improvements. Even though financially everything has been paid for out of proceeds from the Happy Hour, we were not even given the courtesy of being asked. This is not necessarily a condemnation of the Happy Hour as an event but the decision to modify (improve?) everyone’s common area should not be made by the two board members who run the happy hour. No individual or selected group of individuals has any special or exclusive rights to use or modify the common areas.
At this point I’d like to refer to Article 71 of our bylaws under Extraordinary Assemblies Article II and III which cover carrying out optional construction or improvements and well as changes to, or disposal of, the common property. So does it not look like Article 71 has been violated or completely ignored?
posted by Anonymous: 10:30 AM, July 26, 2013
Yes. Clearly ignored and violated. Not sure why ... maybe inconvenient or something ... democracy is so tedious.
posted by Anonymous: 12:50 PM, July 26, 2013
Our Board is above the law, did you not know that? have they not proven this over and over again?
posted by Anonymous: 1:24 PM, July 26, 2013
I also agree that "NOBODY" is allowed to change or replace common area property within EP without an Extraordinary Meeting of the Homeowner's! No matter how great of an idea, no matter how well intended, no matter how free! It is not just the property of a dozen or so people. According to the Jalisco Condo Code and our own By-laws nothing can be changed to the common area without an Extraordinary Meeting to obtain approval from 75% the homeowner's. I'm not saying the changes are not nice, I'm saying they do not have the RIGHT, the AUTHORITY, to do those things. Once again we get back to the matter of the BOD "picking and choosing" which By-laws they choose to ignore and which ones are going to be strictly upheld. How about if WE get to issue fines for the BOD members and CTC when they don't comply with the By-laws?
There were not enough votes at the AGM to change the By-laws so they sent out requests for more votes after the AGM. Then months later they say "everything passed" and by the way, we destroyed the ballots. Sorry Board members, that's totally unacceptable and ignorant of you to think otherwise.
The dissension in EL Parque is less about personality clashes or power struggles and more about the BOD over stepping it's authority time and time again. There are too many homeowner's who display extreme apathy when it comes to the way this place is operating. The BOD members don't even challenge one another's reasoning. It just seems to be too much trouble to give independent thought and reasoning to issues and easier to go with the most assertive ones on the BOD.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around how The BOD can plot and plan to have homeowner's deported and so few people are outraged about it. Is there not a single person on the BOD (past or present) who has the personal integrity to expose them for what they are or did we just elect a bunch of bobbing heads? At one time there was a Board member who apparently saw the light and did not want to be party to the BOD's questionable behavior. Within one year she moved into her home, was elected to the BOD, quit the BOD and sold her home. Anyone remember Carol?? She did take the easy way out by saying her resignation was for health reasons but she only moved down the road. Apparently the air is much cleaner 3km down the road!
posted by Anonymous: 3:03 PM, July 29, 2013
Yes, the board minutes did say "health reasons". Carol told me she quit for not wanting her name associated with dishonesty.
posted by Anonymous: 4:23 PM, July 29, 2013
I agree. It's time to wake up folks! This is not just a playground for part timers but home to many. We all pay fees and should take note to what you said. Unfortunately the truth often hurts!
posted by Anonymous: 8:51 AM, July 30, 2013
Well, not ALL pay fees - there are certainly some full timers that feel they do not have to pay. Do you always feel a need to slam the part timers - many of those part timers contribute to the overall Ajijic/Chapala community in many ways. Can the same be said for some of our full timers whose favorite pastime is spending money at the casino.
posted by Anonymous: 1:14 PM, July 30, 2013
That is the most ignorant remark I have yet to read on this blog. So many full and part timers give their all to so many charities, some have families they help. Going to the Casino has nothing to do with helping others...you fool! We have a board member who loves to gamble.
posted by Anonymous: 5:40 PM, July 30, 2013
The "ignorant" remark of 1:14 pm July 30 looks like an effort to deflect the comments away from a more useful discussion. If there are homeowners who fail to pay their fees, the Board should be dealing with that in an adult, conciliatory manner. Hurling insults is never useful.
posted by edp: 7:00 AM, July 31, 2013
My goodness!! How supercilious was that gambling comment? The crap that smolders beneath the surface surly rises and stinks at times! Obviously a part timer took a comment quite personally offensive though hardly intended. It must have cut very close to the bone judging by the personal attack. I don't think any of us has the foggiest idea what anyone does or doesn't do for the community at large and frankly it's nobody's business but their own. The person that made the personal attack seems far less interested the BOD's hideous attempts at deportation (judging by their lack of comment) than who is giving what to charities. Any full or part time upstanding citizen care to comment or do we just keep our mouths shut and hope the ugliness passes unnoticed by everyone except those targeted?
It only makes sense that people who live in EP full time are more "fully" aware of the daily operations of EP. Would you truly be surprised to suddenly become aware that you that your fed a monthly dose of omissions, half truths and some blatant lies? I know, it's hard to come to terms with but true. You should be LESS QUICK to give the Administration a pass with a quick shrug of the shoulder's and LESS READY to hurl stones at those who dare call them out on their shoddy administrative practices.
posted by Anonymous: 10:34 AM, July 31, 2013
Yes I agree. The "wake up" comment above is apt and applicable to both full-timers and part-timers. I also agree that gratuitous personal insults are pointless even if gratifying for the one making them. There's a big difference between petty personal insults and substantiated and fair criticism of the actions of the administration and those who have supported the administration's attacks on certain individuals.
posted by Anonymous: 12:14 PM, July 31, 2013
Some people have the brain of a small wingless jumping insect known as a "flee".
That goes for the person who made that "ignorant" remark.
posted by Anonymous: 2:45 PM, August 06, 2013
This is my first visit to this part of our website, and I'm amazed at the number of anonymous contributions on this blog. If you have a valid point to make you shouldn't hide your identity. Anonymous comments imply a lack of confidence in your opinion, so why should anyone else take your opinion seriously.
posted by Anonymous: 9:02 AM, August 18, 2013
posted by Anonymous: 11:52 AM, August 18, 2013
What difference does a name make? It only provides the ability to personally attack the messenger rather than the message. Open and frank discussion does not need names attached to make a point valid or invalid, it simply promotes discussion and the thought process. Therefore, I for one shall remain....Anonymous
posted by Anonymous: 11:22 AM, August 19, 2013
Anonymous 9:02. That was a joke, right?
posted by Anonymous: 11:42 AM, August 19, 2013
I doubt it was a joke. Anonymous 9:02 seems to be using the same old nonsense to denigrate the blog and its participants. Nothing new here. If it WAS a joke, then I apologize for misinterpreting the comment.
There's more thoughtful discussion on this blog than on many other sites/blogs I've read, even if these have comments "signed" with initials or quirky pseudonyms. If Anonymous 9:02 feels the discussion needs to be elevated or improved, or wishes to disagree, then she or he could always choose to participate, anonymously or otherwise.
posted by Anonymous by Choice: 12:40 PM, August 19, 2013
When reading the minutes and Administrator's report from the Aug 12th meeting, I noticed that there was no mention of "Wing's Army" the "Material Yard" or the "Cattle Farm". Are we to understand that the meeting with the Mayor brought results to the issues raised?. If no news is good news then are we to believe it's a "done deal"? if so congratulations, again, for a job well done. I'm sure the people affected will be over joyed when they return next winter and find peace and quiet. Our Administrator sure has the right connections.
posted by Anonymous: 2:50 PM, August 21, 2013
No news is good news?? Not in this case. On going are the corn field and cows, Wing's Thursday nights, and the material yard appears to open. No news?? could it be that "they" were told to stop annoying everyone? Is it the Mexicans who vote or the Gringos??
posted by Anonymous: 5:43 PM, August 22, 2013
So, why was it announced in the Minutes that these nuisance issues had been resolved by the actions of the administrator? Puzzling ...
posted by Anonymous: 10:53 AM, August 24, 2013