The Boot

August 12, 2013


Full names are masked in this post and will be on any comments.


English Version

… a Director shall be automatically removed for … missing three regularly scheduled meetings of the Board in a row.

Spanish Version

… un consejero será automáticamente destituido …por… estár ausente durante más de tres reuniones mensuales programadas (ordinarias).


The English version calls for three absences in a row. The Spanish ignores consecutiveness but specifies more than three . In effect, the English sets applicability to a three month stretch of member service. The Spanish leaves the applicability period unlimited. Both versions are currently stated as such on the board's "official" web site. Unknown is whether discrepancy faults to inexpert translation or disinterested monolingual readers. The Spanish version is supposed to hold legal primacy. But then, who knows what is actually recorded on governmental books.


Bruce (C) President, 1 year remaining of 2 year term.
Gordon (W) Treasurer, 1 year remaining of 2 year term.
Clark (M) Secretary, 2 year term.
Dona (H) Voting Director, 2 year term.
John (P) Voting Director, 2 year term.
John (M) non Voting Director, 1 year term.
John (H) Non Voting Director, 1 year term.
Terry (B) Non Voting Director, 1 year term.


Bruce (C) President, Clark (M) Voting, Dona (H) Secretary, John (M) Non Voting, Terry (B) Non Voting


El Board Meeting July 9, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H) Secretary, Don (W) Treasurer, Terry (B), and Clark (M).
ABSENT: John (M), Jennifer (S).

Board Meeting August 27, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H) Secretary, Don (W) Treasurer, Terry (B), and Clark (M).
ABSENT: John (M) and Jennifer (S).

Board Meeting September 24, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H) Secretary, Don (W) Treasurer, Clark (M), and Jennifer (S).
ABSENT: Terry (B) and John (M).

Board Meeting October 15, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H)-Secretary, Clark (M), and Jennifer (S).
ABSENT: Don (W) Treasurer, Terry (B) and John (M).

Board Meeting November 12, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H) Secretary, Clark (M), Jennifer (S), Terry (B) and John (M).
ABSENT: Don (W) Treasurer.

Board Meeting December 17, 2012
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Don (W) Treasurer, Dona (H) Secretary, Clark (M), Jennifer (S), Terry (B).
ABSENT: John (M).

Board Meeting January 14, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Don Wiedeman Treasurer, John (M), Jennifer Stanley, Terry (B)
ABSENT: Dona (H) Secretary, Clark (M).

Board Meeting February 4, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Dona (H) Secretary, Clark (M), John (M), Jennifer (S).
ABSENT: Terry (B).

Board Meeting March 4, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C), President, Gordon (W) - Treasurer, Clark (M) Secretary, John (M), John (P), John (H), Terry (B), Dona (H) was present via conference call.

Board Meeting April 8, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C), President; Gordon (W) Treasurer, Clark (M), Secretary, John (P), Dona (H), John (H), John (M), Terry (B).

Board Meeting May 13, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Clark (M) Secretary, Dona (H), John (P), John (H).
ABSENT: Gordon (W) Treasurer, John (M), and Terry (B).

Board Meeting June 11, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C), Gordon (W). Clark (M), John (P), John (H).
ABSENT: Dona (H), John (M), and Terry (B).

Board Meeting July 15, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Clark (M) Secretary, Dona (H), John (P), John (H).
ABSENT: Gordon (W) Treasurer, John (M), and Terry (B).

Board Meeting August 12, 2013
PRESENT: Bruce (C) President, Gordon (W) Treasurer, Clark (M) Secretary, Dona (H), John (P), John (H).
ABSENT: John (M), Terry (B). There was no remote electronic presence.


Despite significant differences between Spanish and English versions of Article 95, both John (M) and Terry (B) should have been automatically removed from the board July 15, 2013 at latest, if not before. The August 12, 2013 meeting eliminates any wiggle room doubt born of imaginative interpretation.

Why have people on the BOD if they can not be present 6 meetings out of the year and have no real idea of what goes on in the community for half of EVERY year? There is very little discussion during the monthly meetings and way too much rubber stamping going on. If non-voting members are not there to challenge or promote discussion, why have them?

posted by Anonymous: 12:45 PM, August 12, 2013

Totally agree, but this is just one more thing that the board fills that they can get away with?

posted by Anonymous: 12:53 PM, August 12, 2013

Well, they ARE getting away with it. Apparently, this blog is the only place where any kind of analysis or criticism of the behaviour of the board takes place.

posted by Anonymous: 1:17 PM, August 12, 2013

Do we really NEED that many Board members?

posted by Anonymous: 1:37 PM, August 12, 2013

I thought the seasonal members were suppose to participate by telecommunication? Are you sure they aren't doing that?

posted by Anonymous: 9:27 AM, August 13, 2013

Yes, quite sure.

posted by Anonymous: 10:24 AM, August 13, 2013

I agree give them the BOOT. We don't need them, right? Just too many people on this BOD who walk around thinking that EP is their own playground to do as they wish. The Club House an extension to their casa, oh! I get it, you don't need to entertain or clean YOUR own casa if you use the Club House. We all pay for the clean up, gas elec. etc etc. do they pay the 500 deposit??? I would love to see a REAL professional administrator who knows his/her job...and change the bylaw to allow 3 Board members only..I can dream can I? Dreams do come true...

posted by Anonymous: 10:46 AM, August 13, 2013

It is nice to see agreements, opinions, and preferred solutions. That is what this blog claims to be about. In the matter presented however, such expressions have no relevancy whatsoever.

The two board members in question are simply legally so no longer! That is true whether they, we, or other parties like it or not. It has nothing to do with who they are. Whether their board membership helps or hurts is irrelevant.

There is no way do discern a vague "may be but ..." in the certainty of bylaw words "shall be" (and "será"). The term “automatically” (and “automáticamente”) means done and finished with no external decisions or preferences required or appropriate. That’s the law, the one we and they voted in place and agreed to follow.

OK, so it is a done deal. Then why worry over it? Well, a question is raised. What might be the take of the remaining board? There is a likely easy answer. They’ve been there before. John (M)’s board membership required automatic termination after the July through October 2012 meetings though he remained a member.

If the administration again ignores or refuses legality, we are left another question, perhaps the most important and long overdue. What will YOU do about it?

posted by Anonymous: 12:30 PM, August 14, 2013

Maybe we're all seeing a clearer picture develop over the course of this dialog and that's a good thing. What's slowly coming onto focus is the fact that none of us are aware of what the laws and by-laws really say and no one with the inquisitiveness to research it. People are content with the current status that ignorance is bliss.

How can we operate this condo in a responsible way if we constantly elect people to positions of leadership who have no foundation of knowledge regarding the tasks at hand. New members learn from old members or they just make it up as they go. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say that they have lots of experience with condo's north of the border and feel qualified to manage El Parque. Most of them won't even acknowledge that we are in a foreign country with a different set of laws that govern the administration of a condominiums. They seem to think Mexico is lawless and the laws they are aware of don't need to be adhered to. Just as with the firing of the trash collection family when Mexico's labor laws were completely ignored. Some of the situations they have gotten us into are complex and may have serious ramifications yet we have given total control to the uninformed and misinformed who are willing to just "wing it" to the detriment of all of us.

posted by Anonymous: 2:44 PM, August 15, 2013

I suppose that, to be fair, the majority of people who choose to retire to Mexico and live full-time in El Parque, or who spend a few months a year here, probably don't want to bother with all this "political" and "legal" stuff. Yes, ignorance can be bliss, if you choose that route ... and obviously most do. That is unlikely to change. On the other hand, it really shouldn't be necessary for some homeowners to have to spend time and energy attempting to persuade the administration to act in a legally appropriate manner (or fighting attempts at deportation or criminal prosecution, for that matter).

Although it's been mentioned repeatedly, it is abundantly clear that a competent, professional Mexican administrator is VITAL to the proper and legal functioning of the condo. The members of the Board shouldn't need to become experts in Jalisco condo law or even the El Parque by-laws, provided a competent, knowledgeable administrator is permitted to exercise overall management of the condo in accordance with the law. There needs to be a significant shift in perception of the role of the Board of Directors. Rather than seeing themselves as "running" a private fiefdom, the Board's primary role should be to exercise general oversight of the activities of the administrator and to serve as a liason between the homeowners and the administrator. Why make the "job" of being a member of the Board more onerous than it needs to be? For those with time on their hands, there are any number of volunteer activities available in the area that contribute to the local Mexican and/or gringo community.

posted by edp: 7:54 AM, August 16, 2013

I submitted the comment just above edp's. I wish I had been able to express my opinion as well as edp did. I don't know who you are but I am in complete agreement with everything you said. I hope you consider running for a Board position. We could use someone who can foster thoughtful, intelligent discussion.

posted by Anonymous: 1:05 PM, August 17, 2013

It really isn't too much to ask that the people on the board have read and understand the by-laws of El Parque and how those by-laws are reinforced by Jalisco condo law. The statement, "The members of the Board shouldn't need to become experts in Jalisco condo law or even the El Parque by-laws, provided a competent, knowledgeable administrator is permitted to exercise overall management of the condo in accordance with the law. " makes one wonder how fair oversight is to be accomplished without such knowledge.

posted by Anonymous: 6:06 AM, August 18, 2013

Yes, you're quite right. I didn't phrase things as precisely as I should have. What I MEANT is that Board members shouldn't need to have in-depth legal expertise in Jalisco condo law and the El Parque by-laws (i.e be "experts"). Rather, a general, overall UNDERSTANDING of the legal scheme governing condos, as well as the by-laws, should be sufficient to be able to provide oversight of the Administrator's activities. There are useful sources available in English that would greatly assist in providing that understanding. In fact, it may be a good idea that persons who choose to run or are elected to serve on the Board be strongly advised (required?) to read one or more of these sources and to review the by-laws in detail. Obviously, we can't make a background in law a requirement for serving on the Board, but I would think that most people could acquire an adequately detailed understanding of the legal context in which El Parque is operating by reading the appropriate sources and being open to recognizing the differences between the management of Mexican condos and those up North. Of course, the Administrator should have in-depth expertise in Jalisco condo law.

Now, to be realistic, none of this is brain surgery. There are numerous comments on this blog regarding the Board's lack of appreciation of the legal scheme governing El Parque, but it seems to me that this should and could be easily remedied by some "orientation" in the area. In the best of all possible worlds, I would suggest the administrator provide new members of the Board with a short "course" in Jalisco condo law and the by-laws (and the role of the board of directors?) as a way of giving new members sufficient background to perform their duties in a legally appropriate manner.

Yes, I realize I'm being terribly "theoretical" here ... but I don't know how else prospective or new (and continuing) Board members could acquire the necessary understanding of the legal context in which they're operating, and provide oversight of the administrator's activities. We certainly know (at least from this blog) what happens when the Board DOESN'T have this understanding and the administrator fails to intervene. Sigh.

posted by edp: 7:34 AM, August 18, 2013

You make an excellent point, "Makes one wonder how oversight is to be accomplished without such knowledge".

Although knowledge is extremely important, the desire and intent to work within those parameters is equally important. The lack of that desire seems to have consumed our BOD. The last few BOD's have taken on an air of arrogance and the mind set that they owe NO answers to the homeowner's when in reality they are obligated to answer to the homewner's for their actions. Homeowner's have given them free rein for way too long. What we are calling Board of Directors is a misuse of the term intended in the Jalisco Condo Law. They are not a Board of Directors as the title is used in the US or Canada. They do not hold the ultimate authority, the homeowner's do. Most of the things they have voted on and done needed to be approved by the homeowner's in an Extraordinary meeting first. They should NEVER be allowed to operate without question or consequences from the homeowner's. When they are not held accountable for their actions we find ourself in the exact situation we are currently in. We need to quit being complacent and not expect others to do our thinking for us.

posted by Anonymous: 11:33 AM, August 18, 2013

To Anonymous of 11:33 am -- Yes, agreed. The attitude of the current Board is a whole other issue. The option, of course, is to vote them out when the time comes and replace them with persons who are more open to recognizing the legal framework and engaging in the required "consultation" with homeowners. Do you have suggestions regarding how to persuade homeowners to take a close look at the reality of the current Board and the situation as a whole? I suppose that's the crux of this whole thing ... how do you get homeowners to care?

posted by edp: 1:33 PM, August 18, 2013

If you mean other than a 2x4?? Then no, I have no idea how to make the complacent care about anything.

posted by Anonymous: 11:52 AM, August 19, 2013

May I suggest that everyone go back and re-read the post "WHO AM I".

posted by Anonymous: 12:26 PM, August 19, 2013

Yeah, I don't feel particularly hopeful, either, but maybe we should be thinking of ways to shake things up a bit?

posted by edp: 12:50 PM, August 19, 2013

Ok ... I re-read it. A well written post, and entirely accurate ... dammit

posted by edp: 2:51 PM, August 19, 2013

With regard to this blog topic, I sent an email to the Board on August 17. It reads as follows:

I note that (Edit: Name redacted)’s blog has recently been discussing Article 95 of the bylaws, which states, among other things, that if a director misses a certain number of regularly scheduled meetings, that director automatically ceases to be a member of the Board.

The blog applies this language to supplemental directors. I believe that this language does not apply to supplemental directors.

Supplemental directors have no right to vote at meetings of directors; they are not counted towards the quorum. Nor may they substitute at the meeting for a director that is unable to attend. Indeed, I would say that they can actually be excluded, if the Board determines, from attending meetings of the Board. Their only purpose is that they are eligible (if chosen by the Board) to replace a director that has resigned, dies, or abandoned his responsibilities (see Art. 89). They have no responsibilities at all. If that is true, they have no responsibility to attend meetings of the Board and so cannot be penalized under Article 95 for not doing so.

The correct interpretation of Article 95 is extremely important for El Parque because we will inevitably face situations in which directors need to be replaced before the next annual meeting. Without the availability of supplemental directors, we will have serious vacancies on the Board, possibly to the point where the Board cannot function.

I believe those who write the minutes of Board meetings have added to the confusion here, because the supplemental and actual directors are always listed together without distinction when listing those in attendance. I have mentioned this in the past, to no avail.

The next step is to consult a professional and knowledgeable attorney in condominium law to see whether the blog’s interpretation or mine is correct. Certainly, the next step is not to take as true the blog’s interpretation.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 5:44 AM, August 20, 2013

Although at times there may be some valid comments on this blog, what is more troubling than whether we have too many directors on the board or the number of meetings missed by an individual, is the fact that we have so many people in arrears on their condo fee payments. This should be the most troubling issue to all people as ultimately it will impact everyone in El Parque. Every individual's primary obligation is to pay their condo fees in a timely manner. In some situations, there are legitimate reasons for delays in payments (death, estate issues); (Edit: Removed attempted identification and personal defamation of presumed site contributor) There are other homeowners who maybe feel a sense of entitlement and make payments only when pressured to do so. We have been too tolerant as a community - We as a community need to take a stand against all homeowners who are not fulfilling the most basic of obligations of living in a condo community. You have elected to live in a gated community and that comes with a price tag. Enough is enough.

posted by Anonymous: 9:10 AM, August 21, 2013

Yes in addition to the above reasons for some not paying, there are those who say they have paid, but have we as homeowners seen proof of payment. Perhaps you edited the above anonymous submission because you are that individual (the presumed contributor to the blog) or have a close affiliation with that individual. The blog does not seem to concern itself with defaming outrightly and blatantly other individuals, so why the selectivity in this particular case.

posted by Anonymous: 2:58 PM, August 21, 2013

It was stated at the AGM that "a homeowner" had paid dues to the court, (Edit: personally identifying reference redacted). For months now the Minutes have stated that the Administration is "working on" getting the funds from the Civil Court. Would somebody with personal knowledge of the facts PLEASE explain what the hold up is? What does the court need before it will turn over the money? It would be helpful for homeowner's to understand the situation and what may need to be done to retrieve the funds so that we can put this matter to bed.

posted by Anonymous: 2:23 PM, August 22, 2013

I have never seen a post on this blog that has been allowed to use the full name of an individual. However, we are all free to interpret what is being said and derive an opinion about whom it is referring to either by inference or by association. Clearly it is a case of "if the shoe fits, wear it.

posted by Anonymous: 3:02 PM, August 22, 2013

For clarification purposes, the post of August 21, at 9:10 a.m. did not attempt in any way to identify any individual by name nor did it include any defamatory comments. All it suggested was that there are some individuals who seem so obsessed with our administration's non compliance of Jalisco code/condominium law , yet fail to see their own non-compliance with the very basic obligation of Jalisco Condo law and that is payment of condo fees.

posted by Anonymous: 7:23 PM, August 22, 2013

Certainly, the non-payment of condo fees can be a problem for the condo at large. Perhaps the administrator and board need to take a look at ways in which collection of fees could be improved. (Whether the number who are delinquent constitute "so many people in arrears", or "some" or "a few" is, I suppose, a question of perspective.)

Regarding the individual who is the real subject of the above comments, I was under the impression he HAD paid, yet there still seems to be some confusion on that issue that the board has failed to clarify in the Minutes.

The Minutes are, at this point, the primary means of communicating the activities of the administration to homeowners. As such, they should be as accurate and complete as practicable, and should avoid displaying bias in relation to individual homeowners.

posted by edp: 7:21 AM, August 25, 2013

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?