You Don't Say

August 25, 2013

I attended the August 12, 2013 board meeting for the sole purpose of noting attendance but also observed something unexpected, unexplained, and, on reflection, very strange. Arriving before others, I sat in the mail room, from which activity in the adjacent meeting room could be observed. Board members entered singly or paired, and at first engaged in jovial small-talk.

Other visitors had not yet arrived when Martha, the administrator, appeared carrying a manila folder. The room quieted as she passed its pack of single sheets around the table. Board members each removed the one apparently bearing their name and then passed the pack on around the table. An exception was non voting member John (H), who simply passed the pack on without removing a sheet. Each member then signed their page, added it to and passed a reformed pack around the table to Martha. A gate guard entered a few minutes later with a manila folder. Martha removed and passed its paper pack around the table. Excepting John (H), the members each retrieved and kept their own.

The curious element in this unfolded not in its seeing but in what was said. That was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! The sound of silence throughout carried no hint of “what’s this?, “take yours”, “sign and return it.”, or “I don’t have one“. Members seemed to have arrived knowing exactly what they were to do and acted as though preferring no one else did.

No clues to the silent signings were offered in the meeting's minutes released on August 20. It was something that just didn't happen. A friend who regularly attends the meetings denied having previously witnessed similar board action. Then memory brought to fore two non meeting instances involving reception, signing, return, and copy retention of official documents.

The first happened in December when El Parque residents were summoned for deportation. That story is detailed on this blog’s December 27, 2012 “ Deportation” post. The second occurred last March when residents received summons for investigation of criminality. That is described on the March 12, 2013 post titled “Crime Wave”.

Similarities between the paper shuffling of those events and this month's meeting suggest El Parque administration members being summoned by a government agency. If that is the case, which one and why can only be conjectured, and the board is not saying.

Any hopes aside, the lot of them are probably not headed for deportation or jailing. Would it be stretching too far to expect a suit in the works? All who paid for the garbage debacle can attest it wouldn't be the first. The list of those from which one could emanate has grown since to possibly include government agencies, angered businesses, harassed or defamed residents, and present and past employees.

August 30, 2013

Word passed from a board member negating this post’s implication of possible pending suits. It was explained all board meetings begin as observed, and members are simply signing the previous month’s meeting minutes.

If so, that may be even worse than possibility of cloaked suits. They would be jointly and separately testifying by signature to veracity of unread legal documents even before approval had been voted. It flags the administration's continual creation of problems by its regular practice of relegating legalities to nuisance status.

Saturday Nite Live’s Gilda Radner exclaimed a curt “NEVER MIND” when informed her news reporting was incorrect. This site now finds itself eating crow and tentatively advises "NEVER MIND”. But, should it turn out the board is shushing an untold suit, well then just NEVER MIND the "NEVER MIND".

September 28, 2013

Board meeting reports are usually distributed several weeks late but the September 9th took two days. A clue to unique haste could lie in the minutes' line “… as accustomed the Spanish minutes (were) passed and signed by voting members”. And, Bruce did open the meeting passing around a page while announcing “the first task is to pass last month’s minutes - just so nobody gets the impression we’re signing secret documents”. (General laughter gave away this blog’s hushed popularity).

The written and verbal emphasis was clearly intended to allay suspicions raised by the previous month’s paper shuffle dance. Nice try but no buy. Last month’s hokey pokey was in no way encored this time around. So we are left with never minding the “never mind” disclaimer above and reconfirming notions that with this outfit there is more to behold from what is muted than told. Previous suspicions of summons of sorts still stand.

Terry (B) was reported present though ignored bylaws would have him automatically removed. He did connect via computer before the meeting began, cracked a joke, and soon disconnected.

Urgency of reducing mounting debt included suggestions of another (good old reliable but now no longer very) special assessment, cutting workers’ pay, enjoying a cooler pool, and transforming the Jacuzzi to a cold tub. No word was given to bar and grill 24/7 refrigeration. Another concern of import was ensuring fairness to all in coming to grips with unleashed dogs that walk our streets and chase (unleashed) cats.

That is what I took away pertinent to this blog’s content. You may discover more after clicking this link to download and listen to the full 34 minutes.

Hummm, it does make one wonder how much we're not being told.

posted by Anonymous: 2:27 PM, August 25, 2013

Usually it just takes time for things to surface but they always do.

posted by Anonymous: 10:59 PM, August 25, 2013

Yes, very strange. Perhaps the incident outlined in the post was "nothing", but somehow I doubt that's the case. Guess we'll just have to wait for the administration to let us know, provided they choose to do so.

posted by edp: 6:50 AM, August 26, 2013

Another example of why it is important that the BOD and of course the administrator, be very aware of Jalisco condo law and El Parque by-laws. I do remember the last lawsuit and hope to God we don't have more on the way. Board members - please answer - WHAT IS GOING ON?

posted by Anonymous: 7:13 AM, August 26, 2013

I second that, but I'm not holding my breath.

posted by Anonymous: 1:43 PM, August 26, 2013

Re. "Postscript" ... I, for one, remain sceptical. Something doesn't make sense here, but I suppose we'll just have to wait until "Never Mind" is magically transformed to "Ooops". Maybe.

Unfortunately, the past actions of the administration leads me to distrust quick dismissal of concerns.

posted by edp: 6:48 AM, August 31, 2013

Re. "Postscript" Gee!! Procedures must have changed. Previously there was a minutes log book that the board members signed. It might also make sense for all members to sign one copy of the minutes. It might be interesting to see all those signed personalized copies of the minutes over the past few years.

posted by Anonymous: 8:30 AM, August 31, 2013

Board members, we know you are aware of what is written on the blog. You should know that there are no secrets and a lot of rumors. The truth from the Board would be nice, NO?

posted by Anonymous: 5:31 PM, September 10, 2013

"The BOD will be meeting to discuss plans of what costs could be curtailed in the future. Electricity to the common area is high".

I wonder if that commercial size refrigerator that 2-4 homeowner's/ board members took upon themselves to shove into that tiny storage room in the club house is what is running up our electric bill? Certainly it must get quit warm in that little storage room with the summer heat, plus it generates it's own heat while running continuously to keep it cold! Who authorized the installation of that energy sucking device anyway?

If we're so low on funds why are the BOD members approving motions to spend over 6 thousand pesos to replace cement around palm trees. As they mentioned in the minutes.....a budget is approved for the year at each AGM and it's not up to Board members to dream up ways to spend money throughout the year. If they need replacing put it in next years budget. It's not an emergency situation and can wait to be approved by the people. Maybe we all should all take look at the total amount of money they've spent on "non emergency expenditures" not allotted for in the budget up till now.

"it was mentioned a possibility would be to decrease the temperature to the hot tub and swimming pool."

If the BOD determines they should cut back the temperatures on the Jacuzzi, they might as well turn it off completely because bacteria grow rapidly if kept below a specific temperature. Otherwise, have fun in a spa full of bacteria!

posted by Anonymous: 7:06 PM, September 11, 2013

How about if certain individuals paid their fees.that might help. Have to agree re potential cement around palms perhaps could be deferred.

posted by Anonymous: 9:58 AM, September 12, 2013

Have to wonder what has changed in the last two years, to suddenly have high electric bills, can it be that the board is using more in the club house then really need be? Why not go back to the way the social hour use to be and just enjoy one another s' company with our drinks and everyone bring their own snacks? It did work before. To cut back on the heating of the hot tub or pool just does not make sense as more people use that area all week instead of the club house on Fridays? Just one more thing that the board is trying to do without the home owners' approval, or is this just another way for the board to raise home owners Cond. fees once again, or try to blame home owners for not paying their fees.

posted by Anonymous: 11:52 AM, September 12, 2013

Or just another way to run a damn profitable business with us paying the overhead.

posted by Anonymous: 12:25 PM, September 12, 2013

"How about if certain individuals paid their fees. that might help" The blogger who wrote that statement is either a board member trying to confuse the delinquent fees issue or a homeowner who has been misled. On the chance that this blogger simply doesn't know the facts, I will try to clarify the conditions regarding delinquent fees.

Our Treasurer reports that there are delinquent fees of about 110,000 pesos attributed to five homes. The board has repeatedly implied that these five homes simply refuse to pay. The owners of casa 92 HAVE PAID their fees through the end of 2013. At the advice of a licensed, reputable Mexican attorney, they paid ALL their maintenance fees at least 9 months ago through a Mexican court. What drove them to seek the advice of an attorney is irrelevant. Think about it! If you retained and paid a Mexican attorney for advice, wouldn't you follow his advice? Our Administrator and the board have repeatedly implied in board minutes that this homeowner REFUSES to pay his fees. I believe your question should have been "How about if the Administrator and board picked up that homeowner's fees from the court and quit implying to the homeowners that Casa 92 is refusing to pay their fees? that might help"

The fees for Casa 92 have been paid and are sitting in some Mexican court waiting for pickup. The issue is out of the hands of the Casa 92 homeowners. What reasonable motive could there be for encouraging 110 of their fellow homeowners to believe these homeowners are deadbeats and a detriment to El Parque's finances?

Casa 92 represents 49% of the delinquent fees. There are an additional 30% of the delinquencies that have been misrepresented in the board minutes. 20,000 pesos are attributable to a homeowner that is reluctant but NOT UNWILLING to pay. He has always paid sporadically because of his perception of disrespect and maltreatment from the various boards. Collecting those 20,000 pesos requires patience and not persecution or prosecution. An additional 10,000 pesos cannot be paid until a death estate is settled.

Collecting the remaining 25,000 pesos is the Administrator's job. Those fees will not be collected by deluding the homeowners in the minutes about delinquent fees. I suspect that the legal costs of suing for those 25,000 pesos would be greater than the delinquent amount.

If El Parque has financial problems, they DEFINITELY cannot be laid at the feet of delinquent fees. I suspect that will become clear in the not too distant future.

posted by Anonymous: 6:39 PM, September 16, 2013

We are operating well under budget and must take drastic measures to eliminate the resulting large deficit.

posted by Anonymous: 8:02 PM, September 16, 2013


posted by Anonymous: 4:33 PM, September 18, 2013

The following analysis and figures are based on information provided to the homeowners via email following the Sept. 9, 2013 BOD meeting.

Line Amount Descriptions

1) 259,534.41 The amount to be collected as of September 6, 2013. See line item 401-100 Maintenance Fee under column “$ Over Budget” in the Report_from_Condominio_El_Parque.

2) 87,594.05 The total late payment amount of the 5 individually listed homes in the Administrator’s Report under Late Payments.

3) 171,940.36 The difference between line 1 and line 2.

4) 25,632.64 The calculated amount House 92 owes for 2013. Divided the amount 51,265.94 by 2 to derive what is owed for 2012 and 2013 (simplified calculation). Quoting from the Administrator’s Report under Late Payments “House 92 owes 51,265.94 Last year, 2012 and three quarters for 2013”.

5) 197,153.00 The amount owed by others add lines 3 and 4.

Do the other 6 homes that are behind in the third quarter owe a total of 197,153.00? Quoting from the Administrator’s Report under Late Payments “There are 6 other houses that are behind in the third quarter”

That would mean these homes would owe approximately 32,928.83 each just for the third quarter?

Are there more than the 11 Homes behind in payment as reported? In the Administrator’s Report under Late Payments there are 5 homes listed individually and mention of 6 others for a total of 11 Homes.

Why when reporting late payments all homes are not listed individually with the amount due?

If the amount of Maintenance Fees to be collected as of September 6, 2013 is incorrect, an amended Report should be published showing the corrected information.

posted by Anonymous: 6:05 PM, September 18, 2013

So, what I'm seeing from the comments of 6:39 pm Sept 16 and 6:05 pm Sept 18 is that the administration has been engaging in some distortion of reality with respect to the "delinquent fees" issue. The tedious and unprofessional vendetta against Casa 92 really needs to end; the administration should simply do what's necessary to collect those damn fees and be done with it. If new procedures need to be established to collect other outstanding fees, then just do it. Enough is enough. Too bad the homeowners never had an opportunity to see a professional auditor's report of the financial records.

posted by edp: 9:10 AM, September 19, 2013

re anonymous Sept 16 posted at 6:39,t he individual who is in arrears of his dues of 20,000 has always pushed the limits on everything whether it is paying his dues on time or whether it is doing work on his property that has not been sanctioned. There seems to be an issue of a sense of entitlement. This individual has never participated in any activities in El Parque, has never contributed to the well being of the community, so to suggest that he has been treated with disrespect is totally untrue and misleading.

As for house 92, what point are they trying to prove - why would you as a homeowner sanction their behaviour when in the end it will cost all of us money to cover lost revenues. Why would you pay money to the court when the court has no jurisdiction over the functioning of El parque - do you think we will ever see that money from the courts and what proof has homeowner 92 provided to the residents of El Parque that indeed that money was even paid. Shame on them for attempting to destroy a community and then still wanting to participate in some of the activities that El parque has to offer.

posted by Anonymous: 5:33 PM, September 19, 2013

In response to Anonymous 5:33PM

I have followed with interest the ongoing conflict between the BOD and casa 92. It seems to me that you may have missed a great deal of the conversation regarding it in the Minutes and on this Blog.

It's my understanding that initially the homeowner had some issues/complaint regarding the way the Administration was conducting it's business. He apparently approached them several times to pay the Condo fees according to the way the by-law read and was rebuffed.

The very issue the homeowner had a problem with was eventually addressed at the last AGM, by being corrected or modified. It appears the BOD recognized the complaint to be legitimate very early on in the dispute but chose to fight and escalate the issue rather than concede error.

Apparently both parties sought advice of attorney's. The homeowner must have followed the advice of his attorney by paying the condo fees to the court as a show of "good faith" intention to pay, something most people would not think to do on their own. This seems to me to be the proper way to handle a financial dispute when neither party can come to an agreement. It allows the court to settle the dispute and would most likely be handled the same way in CA or USA.

I'm honestly trying to look at both sides of this and not lay blame without applying common sense because I feel neither the homeowner nor the Administration is intentionally bad. I say that knowing all the parties involved. I have however, come to the conclusion that the BOD certainly mishandled this situation and is equally, if not more to blame for the escalation of it for the simple fact that the BOD did recognize that the By-Law needed to be changed. That much is fairly easy to see, if you're at all willing to admit fallibility in our BOD members. It seems some people refuse to look at this objectively and respond in an aggressive manner.

You stated that the court has no jurisdiction over El Parque. I trust that you cannot in all honestly believe that. Do you actually think El Parque can operate outside the laws of Jalisco? If so, than may I politely, but firmly suggest, that you do not walk, but run for the border!

The BOD Minutes has confirmed that the funds have been paid to the court, I don't believe that is at issue. It's been my understanding that the Administration can pick the money up at any time. Why they have not chosen to do so, I can not say. I hope they find a way to resolve this.

posted by Anonymous: 1:10 PM, September 20, 2013

Re. Anon. 1:10 - yes, I agree. Your explanation is also my understanding of the issue regarding Casa 92.

The statement made by Anon. 5:33, that Casa 92 is "attempting to destroy a community" is certainly hyperbole, and misguided. Why would a dispute that probably should have remained private between Casa 92 and the administration, and which the administration should have resolved long ago, be seen as destructive to the community? It is the community's response to the dispute, as misrepresented by the administration, along with the smears, trash-talking, shunning, etc., that was initiated and encouraged by the BOD and was then taken up with gusto by some (many?) members of that community that has resulted in the erosion of what had been a very civil and courteous dynamic within El Parque. In any event, I fail to see how the community has or is being "destroyed".

Further, a condominium is a creature of Jalisco statute and, as such, the Courts have jurisdiction to resolve legal issues flowing from the application of the statute.

In short, fee payment (or non-payment) is essentially a private matter between the administration and a homeowner. It is the responsibility of the administration to establish policies or procedures to facilitate collection. Of course, diplomacy and discretion should be integral to such policies. It really should NOT be up to homeowners at large to serve as "enforcers" on behalf of the administration.

Regarding the "lost revenues" Anon. 5:33 is attributing to Casa 92, is is clear that the administration is failing to resolve that fee dispute in anything approaching a timely manner.

posted by edp: 5:22 PM, September 20, 2013

When I first saw the email “letter” from the president, dated September 30, 2013, I thought I would hold off on commenting until a properly written letter and agenda was released; I had the impression that the email was a hasty rough draft (complete with typos) that must have been forwarded in error. Guess not.

The purpose of the letter is said to be to “call for” an extraordinary meeting to “try to resolve the problem” of Casa 92. The problem set out is that the occupants of Casa 92 “want to live here and let everyone else pay their way”. Good grief. Of course that’s nonsense.

There’s simply a long-standing dispute between the administration and Casa 92 that is with the Court. It’s acknowledged in the letter, and in Board Minutes, that there is a disagreement as to the amount of money owed. Ok. That’s normally why a party would pay into court; it’s an acknowledgment that money is owed but that there is a dispute regarding the amount, for whatever reason. If the parties can’t arrive at a negotiated agreement, then the Court can be asked to make a decision. Even in Mexico, I doubt this is a particularly complicated procedure. But, somehow, the administration has consistently failed to find a way to resolve this dispute.

Further, I don’t see how homeowners at an extraordinary meeting can “resolve the problem”. In my view, the letter displays a self-serving misrepresentation of the facts as well as the apparently ongoing process. I suppose that doesn’t matter, though. Whatever homeowners may “decide” is utterly irrelevant to the Court. And, in any event, that’s not the real purpose of the meeting.

What I’m seeing is the set up for “lynch mob meeting 2.0”. For those who would like a reminder of the deplorable and embarrassing display at the November 17 meeting of last year, the audio is available on this blog under the title There Are No Bad Guys Here. Let’s not fool ourselves. This whole issue of the Casa 92 fee payment has continued and escalated because of personal animosity, plain and simple. The administration couldn’t be more unprofessional.

It is also possible that the administration is looking for “agreement” from homeowners to take some kind of legal action against the owners of Casa 92. I’m not sure what that could realistically be, and I won’t bother speculating. However, if the administration wants to rely on the results of an extraordinary vote, the ballots and proxies probably should NOT be destroyed this time! El Parque homeowners may be prepared to allow the administration to cut corners procedurally, with the most glaring example being the absence of a homeowner vote regarding the “upgrading” of the common property Clubhouse. The courts tend to be somewhat more concerned about procedural niceties.

Anyway, the administration and some homeowners are clearly itching for a battle or confrontation or something, and I doubt anything will dissuade them. My hope is that those who are “on the fence” are able to resist the administration’s efforts to manipulate them.

posted by Anonymous: 12:08 PM, October 15, 2013

I too was taken aback at the letter that was sent to the homeowners. A letter from the president should not be as sloppy and haphazard as that one was. I can't help but wonder about the thought process and reasoning that went into it before sending it out.

posted by Anonymous: 12:49 PM, October 16, 2013

Upon reading the e-mail I had serious questions. Has he gone mad? Just outrageously foolish? Power hungry? Or, maybe all three?

posted by Anonymous: 5:24 PM, October 16, 2013

I agree. Just when you think the board the president and maybe the administrator can't get more mean-spirited and incompetent, they throw out something like this. It would be unbelievable if I had not seen the email with my own eyes.

posted by Anonymous: 8:39 AM, October 17, 2013

Interesting that no one is bothering to defend the letter and its contents. Is it too much even for the BOD "supporters"?

posted by Anonymous: 6:53 AM, October 18, 2013

I heard something yesterday that made me think of your El Parque, that is:


Poor poor El Parque will it ever change?

posted by Anonymous: 1:39 PM, October 18, 2013

To me the most interesting thing about the letter was not that of a man revealing more of himself than most would. Instead, it was his letter’s date, September 30th. He declared what the board and administrator planned though it had not been decided at any previous meeting and there have been none since. What the president set in print told of the natures of the administrator and other board members, each seemingly content to be no more than one of his lackeys. In penning that letter, the president signaled El Parque has neither an administrator nor board of directors.

posted by Anonymous: 5:38 PM, October 18, 2013

Power hungry and corruption is what you have in El Parque..Did not read the email from your President but the comments say it all.

posted by Anonymous: 9:24 AM, October 19, 2013

The "Snow Birds" are returning to El Parque, their winter home. Paradise some call it. Is it? The minutes of the Board meetings present a false story and therefore, give these fun loving residents a very sorry sense of security. They should be careful. They may be asked to open their wallets once again and should think about it.

posted by Anonymous: 6:10 AM, October 22, 2013

Why would we be asked to open our wallets? is there trouble in paradise?

posted by Anonymous: 8:25 AM, October 22, 2013

I opened my wallet once for the "Garbage Law Suit" very bad judgement on the part of the administrator and the BoD. Was told by a very reliable source that the home owners did not have to pay. I will put my wallet under lock and key, I will not pay one cent for the next one.

posted by Anonymous: 4:26 PM, October 22, 2013

Following receipt of the President's e-mail, I took a close look at what little information exists on the Casa 92 delinquent fee problem that was the topic of the e-mail. The blog is useful to some extent. The Minutes don't provide any detail.

Years ago I was part of a Tenant's Association that paid our rent into Court to force the landlord to do necessary repairs. Although there was a lot of back and forth, the problem was taken care of pretty quickly. Being puzzled by the length of time that the Board seemed to be taking to collect the fees and take care of the problem I've tried to find out what I can.

The President's e-mail isn't very helpful in explaining the facts of what is taking place. Based on some conversations with some knowledgeable people I have learned that in Mexico time limits for filing court papers are very, very strict. If a party to a court case doesn't file the right document within the necessary time frame, it is "fatal". From what I can gather, it seems that the Board or its lawyer or the administrator may or must have missed the due date for filing the necessary document for dealing with the payment into court and consequently they lost the chance to collect the fees from the court.

My questions to the Board are: Did you miss a deadline and can you not collect the fees because you missed the chance to get them? Is that why the person is "trying to get his money back", because the case is now over or closed?

I understand that missing a deadline may have been or was the basis of the problem that led to the Special Assessment for the garbage lawsuit. Is there a pattern here? And why?

I intend to raise these questions at the next Homeowner's Meeting. The Board needs to provide accurate information about how they have dealt with the fee case and what they intend to do now, if in fact they have lost the case because they messed up. However, my wallet, too, is staying shut.

posted by Fed Up: 11:26 AM, October 23, 2013

I presume that the President's letter was written and forwarded without reflection? Is our Administrator pondering her next move? How many court due dates can one miss accidentally or with deliberate intention? to whose advantage? not the home owners since we are asked to pay. Why do people especially the BoD always believe without questioning the excuses/reasons??

posted by Anonymous: 9:31 AM, October 24, 2013

I hope someone will record all future meetings.

posted by Anonymous: 10:57 AM, October 24, 2013

In answer to anonymous 10.57

It's not what is said at the official meetings, God knows that is bad enough, but at the clandestine ones where all decisions are made. Surprise Surprise folks!

posted by Anonymous: 1:19 PM, October 24, 2013

November 13th extra ordinary meeting cancelled. Am I to assume that the President's letter was written and forwarded without reflection? Quite an admission by the administration. Has the President been thrown under the bus?

posted by Anonymous: 7:39 PM, October 24, 2013

The only legally valid decisions that the Board can make are those taken at an official meeting called with proper notice and attended by a quorum of directors. Moreover, those decisions must be properly recorded in the minute book.

This does not mean that members of the board cannot talk among themselves, in whatever form is useful, to plan for El Parque, to obtain advice from professionals, and to test their ideas with one another in a less formal forum. Frankly, not to do so would be a gross dereliction of duty. We would not expect a member of congress or parliament to vote on an issue that has not first been reviewed in committees and subcommittees and discussed with colleagues and constituents. If the board decides to have informal open meetings (conversations) with the homeowners from time to time on important issues, so much the better.

Jim R., Casa 9

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 2:07 AM, October 25, 2013

Certainly, in a normal condo environment, formal and informal consultation with homeowners, professionals, etc., is appropriate and useful as a prelude to decision-making. However, within the current El Parque context, that is not how things have been working. It is not surprising that there is concern about informal "off the record" discussions that lead to Board decisions.

To focus specifically on the issue being discussed in some of the comments above, the president's letter of Sept. 30 seems to have been drafted and sent out to homeowners without consultation even within the Board. The Board has now discarded the president's "idea" and is setting up some kind of less formal meeting to discuss unspecified matters. Given last year's homeowner's lynch mob meeting (Nov. 17), it is to be expected that at least some homeowners would be sceptical about the level of good faith being displayed by the administration in organizing this "consultation" or "information" or "discussion" meeting.

As well, there appears to be some confusion within the Board regarding the Casa 92 payment into court issue. Board members may want to engage in some useful informal consultation with persons who could clarify the actions taken and relevant procedures related to that issue as well as the legal implications. It may very well be that the person or persons in the administration having carriage of the file have not been as clear or forthcoming on important details as is appropriate.

Modifying reality to fit a propaganda position, as displayed in the president's letter, does not provide a useful basis for consultation,information dissemination or decision-making either within a formal context, such as a Board meeting or Extraordinary Meeting, or informally.

posted by Anonymous: 8:08 AM, October 25, 2013

In answer to Casa 9.
1st para: Agree
2nd para: Really? Garbage in garbage out is what we see.

posted by Anonymous: 8:37 AM, October 25, 2013

Casa 9. Informal meetings you say? what have they accomplished? the garbage law suit fiasco is a good example, yes? What next can we expect...

posted by Anonymous: 8:49 AM, October 25, 2013

I am trying to look forward, not back. We should all be in agreement that a meeting to clarify questions regarding the collection of, or failure to collect, duly owed condo fees is a good thing. This is a beginning.

I would hope, however, that that is not the only topic of discussion. I would like to see other important topics discussed at this meeting and at subsequent ones. El Parque faces a future that is open-ended. We need to have a conversation among us homeowners about what we want for the future. But the only way we will be successful is if we come together in a civilized manner to talk, having the best interests of the entire community at heart. One caution: if we get together solely to air recriminations about past events, we will not make progress for the future.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 9:39 AM, October 25, 2013

It is heartening that Casa 9 is attempting to indicate a path forward for our dysfunctional condo. I agree that it would be useful, and much more pleasant, if we could "come together in a civilized manner to talk".

However, in my view it is the administration that needs to be primarily responsible for establishing a new dynamic within the condo, having been responsible for the current continuing state of affairs. The president's letter of Sept. 30 certainly doesn't display anything approaching a "civilized" tone. I recognize that the letter has now been discarded by the board in some way or another, but as an example of the general tenor of the administration's dealings with homeowners, it remains relevant.

For those individuals who have been subjected to social and legal persecution by the administration and others, it's going to take more than wishful thinking to persuade them that the administration is suddenly prepared to act in good faith, providing FULL information regarding decision-making and to permit the voicing of opposing views.

In his previous comment (2:07am), Casa 9 likens the Board to Congress or Parliament, where meaningful consultation is ostensibly embraced and encouraged in an effort to arrive at useful decisions. (Well, let's pretend that's the case.) Yes, wouldn't it be lovely if that took place within El Parque. A significant difference is that, unlike Congress or Parliament, no formal or informal "opposition" is permitted. I certainly don't disagree with Casa 9, but I do think it is up to the administration to demonstrate good faith and the willingness to be transparent in its decision-making. Absent that, Casa 9 is whistling into the wind.

posted by Anonymous: 12:02 PM, October 25, 2013

I agree with Jim R telling us the way it is supposed to be and should be but not how he envisions it could be if only we overlook what was and is. I sense most other commenters here, now including myself, guide thoughts and actions by what we’ve seen rather than wish.

The well orchestrated last November hoot and holler meeting and resulting social acrimony should have been the clue to how low we would go. But that was just a start, an experiment so to speak. Personal targeting and harassment as diversion from incompetence and dishonesty was then just beginning. We were yet to be treated to more, much more. There were matters of financial records still held hidden, deportation attempts, criminal character investigations, questioned voting, who dares speak to who, local businesses threatened, and capped by the Mexican army brought to our gate.

And now we have the president’s ill conceived letter whooping up another year of the same. Could it get lower? I fear to know. So no Jim R, you can take your supposed to be’s, wish they were’s, and hardly demonstrated civilized manners. I’ll go with what I’ve seen and what this administration won’t say while this blog does. Thank goodness for it!

posted by Anonymous: 12:07 PM, October 25, 2013

Yes, despite extraordinary efforts by the administration to close down this blog and, failing that, to discourage homeowners and residents from reading it, this blog has remained the one and only forum where analysis and opposing views of the administration's activities can be voiced. Within the context of El Parque, it's the closest thing to a free press we have!

I find it interesting that Casa 9 is using this blog to express his views promoting "civilized" interactions within El Parque. But why not? Most of those who bother to comment on this blog usually really DO care about El Parque and the direction it has taken over the last while. Now, the tough part is persuading the administration that open and free discussion and decision-making is a good thing ...

posted by Anonymous: 12:55 PM, October 25, 2013

ARMY !!! ???

posted by Anonymous: 1:32 PM, October 25, 2013

I can appreciate that some of you may think me naïve in attempting to downplay the past and build toward a future. But we have to begin somewhere, not with best wishes, but with a concrete idea, goal.

I would like to propose that the homeowners urge the Board to form a committee to search for, interview, and recommend to the Board a professional, knowledgeable, and trustworthy attorney from Guadalajara, competent in Jalisco condo law. Please let’s admit that this is a terribly difficult thing to do. I have no one I can recommend, and my experiences with Mexican attorneys have told me that high quality ones are rare.

Here’s why I think this should be our first step. A good percentage of our disagreements have to do with whether or not various legalities are being followed. Ideally, this should not be a subject of contention. The law should be essentially clear on most of this. The difficulty is finding a competent attorney to tell us what is correct. (We have difficulty getting a straight answer on the simplest questions; e.g., can you use faxes for proxy appointments.) When I first came down here I myself was naïve enough to think that any Mexican attorney could answer a basic legal question. Not to mention putting his answer in writing.

Another reason we need to find an appropriate attorney is that (based on nothing but my own analysis and knowledge of Mexico) we have lost and are losing court cases because of incompetent legal representation. Let me say, with respect to the garbage fiasco, that I think we were taken in by Taliban lawyers working for the plaintiffs and by a corrupt judiciary (these Taliban lawyers chase after labor law cases and have been described in the Guadalajara Reporter; the Jalisco judiciary is the second most corrupt in Mexico, according to the Mural.) On the other hand, a competent lawyer should have told us about the system we were fighting and that we did not have a chance.

After, or before, the Board hires such a lawyer, I would have him/her, the firm come and speak to the homeowners and answer questions they may have.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 1:55 PM, October 25, 2013

I only can say what I saw. It was astonishing enough to note on my calendar. Late Sunday morning of last April 21 three Mexican military trucks arrived and parked outside our gate. Two or more dozen soldiers were on the ground dressed in full battle gear and waving automatic weapons. Some were masked. Martha was with them. They remained for several hours.

posted by Anonymous: 2:17 PM, October 25, 2013

I remember that Sunday April 21st very well. Did our administrator say why the army was here? No. The next day our dear Felix was killed on the Libramiento.

posted by Anonymous: 2:44 PM, October 25, 2013

Your suggestion has merit. How would you propose actually finding a competent lawyer when they are rarer than hen's teeth, as you describe? It may be that the better ones fall within the category of Notario, but I don't know. Given that our administrator is a licensed lawyer, the search committee as described "should" be unnecessary. Perhaps that is an indication that the a search for a new administrator with a legal background might ultimately be more useful? I am not dismissing your proposal, but rather I'm raising a question, in the spirit of "civilized discussion".

posted by Anonymous: 3:15 PM, October 25, 2013

To answer Anonymous at 3:15 PM.

It will be a herculean task to find the adequate person. That is why I do not wish to be overcritical of those who have not done so.

I would look at who is teaching condo law in the schools. I also came across the name of a lawyer on the web who has given courses to administrators and others on Jalisco condo law. More web searching and talking to people in Guadalajara who run condos would also help. Remember there are thousands of condominium apartments in Guadalajara that are subject to the same Jalisco condo law.

I do not mean to be facetious here. But do you realize that to become a Mexican lawyer all that is involved is an undergraduate major in law (rather than, say, history or chemistry)? In the States we have three years exclusively devoted to the study of law after one has received his B.A. or B.S.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 4:04 PM, October 25, 2013

Potentially useful suggestions, but I very much doubt the administration has reached a point where positive suggestions for improvement would be accepted or even tolerated.

And, yes, what WAS that whole army thing about?

posted by Fed Up: 7:08 AM, October 26, 2013

How do you get movement on looking for the right lawyer? Very simple. Public petition. If the majority of the homeowners want it, it will happen. In fact, I don't believe the Board, as a whole, would be opposed to this idea. It's a question of overcoming inertia.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 9:32 AM, October 26, 2013

Yes, Please tell what was that Army visit about? As I walked by I saw the soldiers with guns standing by the gate, very scary. Martha was there. Why were we not told the reason for such a visit. Why is everything so secretive? If it is to protect someones privacy? then just say so. Casa 9 do you know the answer?

posted by Anonymous: 9:34 AM, October 26, 2013

I will be glad to tell anyone in person what I know about the army’s coming. I was there. But I do not wish to be distracted by this subject from the long-term suggestion I am trying to make. That is that we should take advantage of the upcoming meeting to discuss the future of El Parque. To make this suggestion more concrete, I propose that we begin by focusing on the specific issue of hiring the kind of attorney I talked about in earlier communications.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 10:13 AM, October 26, 2013

According to the Board's subcommittee on disinformation and propaganda, the army thing never happened. If it had happened, it could not be disclosed in the interest of El Parque security. It has occurred to me, however, that maybe it was Wing's army. I understand El Parque has some connection with that allegedly subversive para-military organization.

posted by Anonymous: 10:19 AM, October 26, 2013

Re. the Army at the gates: As far as I know, the army tends to deal with drug and cartel issues. However, I somehow doubt a resident is cooking meth within the fortified walls of EP.

Re. Jim R.'s of 9:32 and 10:13 -- a petition may be a useful way to get some kind of consensus going. Unfortunately, experience leads me to be less optimistic than Jim R. Would be nice if I'm wrong.

posted by Anonymous: 11:10 AM, October 26, 2013

The Wings Army crack made me giggle.

Jim R. -- You really do need to recognize that some or all of the people commenting here have serious trust issues re. the Board and Administrator and others. Unfortunate, but entirely understandable under the circumstances, and not easily or quickly resolved.

posted by Anonymous: 11:55 AM, October 26, 2013

Response to Anonymous 11:10 AM. A while ago some board member(s) came up with the idea of requiring owners to contribute to the Red Cross from their El Parque dues. This was clearly illegal. A concerned homeowner organized a petition against this, and the idea was dropped.

I believe problems can be solved on an issue by issue basis if there is a will to look to the future, not the past.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 12:05 PM, October 26, 2013

What we really need is a competent administrator that is knowledgeable of the Jalisco Condo Laws. Particularly one that would not tolerate being told how to do the job by incompetent Board members who have no understanding what-so-ever of condo administration. What we have right now is a panel of people trying to make rules up as they go along and then trying to enforce them in a kangaroo court. When you combine that with enough arrogance, hatred and vindictiveness to involve official actions such as, deportation, criminal investigators, and the Mexican Army, in a clandestine manner, then you have all hell breaking loose. Yes, when you instruct your lackey to call the Mexican Army, giving false information to harass or arrest someone then you have sunk to a new low as human beings, you have reached the bottom of the barrel.

The administration is naive in believing that the community cannot see through the thinly vailed curtain that they are hiding behind. They fully depend upon those who are willing to bury their heads in the sand and who refuse to even glance at that vailed curtain. The malicious actions are absolutely, unequivocally and outrageously dangerous. For us to allow people of that caliber to manage our condo leaves me believing that we ARE crazy and the craziest inmates are running the asylum. The administration has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no moral compass and no boundaries .

We should be grateful that we have people in the community who are willing to challenge the Administration and ask the tough questions such as are on this blog. Lord knows, many do not get the full picture of what happens in EP when they are not here. Nor do they pay near enough attention to the operational aspects of EP. Everyone gladly hands over the responsibility of EP to whomever is running for a position and then happily turns their backs to it all. If we are honest with ourselves, many do not even read the minutes of board meetings however lacking they are. We are well behaved sheep following the shepard and in the case of EP, right over the cliff to our own destruction.

Yes, casa 9 you are correct in your assessment that we need a fully qualified administrator and a competent attorney to field questions to when necessary. However, your assessment is nothing new. MANY of us have been asking for that for years. An Administrator that would be willing to stand up to the Board when the Board is wanting to act in an irresponsible/inappropriate manner. An Administrator that runs this place as a business, not a social director and is not intimidated with the threat of loosing his/her job if they don't act as the Board ignorantly demands. I would agree that the focus of this years homeowner meetings should be on proper administration as opposed to silly squabbling.

By the way, where in the hell does this Board get off allowing our well paid Administrator to use our office, equipment and most of all our time and money to operate her own private immigration business??? Will someone PLEASE tell me who has allowed this to happen???!!! If she wants to run a business than tell her to rent her own damn space, supply her own damn equipment and pay her own damn salary!!! Enough of this stupid BS of paying an Administrator a good full time salary for part time work!!

posted by Anonymous: 12:22 PM, October 26, 2013

Attacking the current Board is not the most productive use of your time. In a couple of months, we will have a significantly different Board. As so I think another pressing issue to be discussed is what kind of people we wish to have on the Board and where will we get them. If potential Board members can expect only criticism, there will be none to serve. We need to support capable candidates acceptable to the majority of homeowners. There is a lot of work to be done.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 12:26 PM, October 26, 2013

El Parque has an Administrator. Our bylaws clearly stipulate that it is the duty of the Administrator to collect homeowners' fees. It is not the job of any board member or the body of board members. It is DEFINITELY not the job of any or all homeowners.

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding payment or non-payment of fees, if the Administrator is not collecting fees, SHE IS NOT DOING HER JOB. I find it morally reprehensible that the Administrator and the board are whining to the homeowners via board minutes about their own inability to do their jobs. The homeowners have no role or authority in fees collection and the administration knows this. It is not the so-called troublemakers or even the supposedly delinquent homeowners that are stirring up dissension in El Parque. It is the administration and they seem to be doing it with intentional malice.

After six years of outstanding El Parque fees payment history, this administration suddenly claims to be having a problem collecting fees. Does the problem lie with the payers or the collectors? I don't know but I do know it's not my problem and I don't think I should even know about it.

posted by Anonymous: 12:27 PM, October 26, 2013

I agree with anonymous 12.22 and anonymous 12.27 Oct 26

I saw people escorted by a guard to the Administrators office many times.

Issues between a home owner and the Administrator should be private. I bet if the Administrator had accepted the cash the first time it was offered had then advised politely that she was asked not to take cash this whole mess would not have escalated, but no, now this has landed in the courts. A professional Administrator would have handled it without a problem. This is after all a simple part of the job.

posted by Anonymous: 6:45 PM, October 26, 2013

Interesting train of comments over the last couple of days. Clearly, some of those writing here are particularly concerned with the administrator and her failure to reign in the Board, with the fact that she has been complicit in the deplorable actions taken by the Board against individual homeowners and in escalating the Casa 92 fee payment issue. Etc., etc., etc.

From my standpoint, the crux of the issues raised here is that a new Board who may wish to act in a more "appropriate" manner will remain hamstrung by the failings of the current administrator.

Jim R. mentioned, for example, that the Board had hatched a clearly illegal scheme to use condo fees to contribute to the Red Cross, but withdrew the idea after some homeowners presented a petition. Well, for pete's sake ... why didn't the administrator simply nix the idea? Because the Board wouldn't have listened? Because it didn't occur to her? Whatever. But why should it be the homeowners' responsibility to supervise the Board and administrator on routine, minor legal issues?

Yes, a competent outside lawyer would certainly be useful in providing opinions and advice on ticklish legal matters from time to time. How often would or should that be necessary? Should EP be paying a lawyer's fees IN ADDITION TO the administrator's salary in order to handle fairly routine legal issues that can and should be resolved by a competent administrator? As well, some problems or questions could doubtless be clarified by referring to the English language Jalisco Condo Law book or the author's blog.

In short, having access to the advice of a competent lawyer would be enormously useful in the event of law-suits, potential law-suits and that sort of thing. Experience has shown, though, that law-suits evolve from fairly minor actions that have not be accurately identified as problematic and have been allowed to escalate.

In my view, it would be useful to focus discussion on the role of the administrator and setting up a search committee to find another person more suited to managing the condo and providing advice to the Board.

posted by Anonymous: 6:56 AM, October 27, 2013

Jim R. is right-12:26pm. Attacking the current board is not the most productive use of our time as they just don't listen to any one but themselves and carry on and do what they want - not what the people of EP want. Every thing that has been done around the club house has been done by the Strong Arm of the board, not that some of it was not needed but did they ask the people of EP( NO.) Hopefully the new board will have the decency to consult with the owners about what they would plan first as the home owners are the ones who put up the money to run this condo. Who ever runs for the board I hope that their intention is for the good of EP. first not just to run it with a strong arm and small amount of knowledge as what the past board did not have.

posted by Anonymous: 8:01 AM, October 27, 2013

Politics is the art of the doable. That is why I strongly suggest focusing on obtaining a lawyer with the kind of credentials that I have described earlier. I believe, if properly explained, most homeowners and most Board members could support this suggestion. While not the perfect solution, it is something that can be done right now and would go a long way to solving a good number of our problems. It would help insure, among other things, that El Parque is following the law and getting the proper legal advice it requires.

Getting rid of the administrator right now is not doable. The support from the community and Board is not there. So I urge us to look at what can be done now to improve El Parque. [In the interests of full disclosure, I do no think the administrator should be replaced and I think that any failings on her part, if they do exist, can be corrected.]

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 10:11 AM, October 27, 2013

Regarding Anon. 6:56

Not sure there would be much support for changing administrators. Some seem to think that it is next to impossible to fire her, and that finding a replacement IS impossible. I do agree with the comment overall, but it may very well be "wishful thinking".

posted by Fed Up: 10:22 AM, October 27, 2013

If you want to move forward, the place to start is by making the community aware that our "Board of Directors" as we call them, do not have the same authority as the term "Board of Directors" indicates north of the border. It has been mistranslated. Our "Board members" are advisors to the administration. They oversee the Administrator to make sure the Administrator is carrying out his or her duties according to the By-laws, but if the By-laws contradict the Civil Condo Code it is the job of the Administrator and possibly an attorney to advise them of that as well.

posted by Anonymous: 11:10 AM, October 27, 2013

I would not renew her contract, period. I don't think we can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

posted by Anonymous: 11:48 AM, October 27, 2013, 2013

Re. Anon. 6:56 and Casa 9 10:11

Well, the arguments for and against the administrator are spelled out, at least for those who choose to read the blog. In any event, polite disagreement is refreshing.

posted by Anonymous: 12:44 PM, October 27, 2013

I do not think hiring the kind of lawyer I have suggested is a big, or continuing, expense. Right now there exist a number of legal questions, e.g., the role of the Board vs. that of administrator. Most of these questions can be answered simply once and for all and need not be rehashed continually. When, down the line, other questions re condo law arise from time to time, we will have someone to go to—sort of like a Supreme Court.

Most of the issues are not that complex. The problem is my interpretation of the Bylaws and Jalisco Code is not always the same as yours—and so we need someone whose authority we can all accept.

posted Jim R., Casa 9: 12:52 PM, October 27, 2013

So far in my comments, I have looked for areas where we can all agree (the future of El Parque is more important than the past), and ways of resolving areas where there is disagreement (hiring an attorney with the credentials I have outlined).

But, at the risk of being accused of having no business interpreting Mexican law, let me pose an issue to you, to point out that individual homeowners [even me] are not always competent to interpret the laws governing condos and that therefore obtaining the kind of legal counsel I have described is extremely important.

Many have called for getting rid of the administrator. But, from a legal point of view, have you thought about how you would do this? My interpretation of the Jalisco Code is that the administrator is not elected by the homeowners. The way I read it, is that the Board selects a person to be administrator and then presents that person at the ordinary assembly for approval or disapproval. If I am correct, you have to change the Board if you want to change the administrator

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 2:16 PM, October 27, 2013

I have not been following the blog at all but my curiosity was awakened after hearing about it. There is a lot of talk about casa 92 and payment of condo/maintenance fees. I am worried that this may lead to another lawsuit, as I doubt whether casa 92 would have engaged a lawyer and risk paying enormous expenses if they had any doubts that they could win. Nobody is that rich or stupid. My fear is that we are heading toward another very costly lawsuit and I for one refuse to pay for such a lawsuit. If the board and the administrator are so sure they are right and have no chance of losing this one, let each one of them pay out of their own pocket and stop trying to get the backing of the homeowners. If they get that, then they are off the hook for any bad decision they make now and in future and we will be left paying lawsuit after lawsuit. In fact I am surprised that there have not been more since I certainly would have a lawsuit pending if someone tried to have me deported without adequate cause or was charged with drug trafficking without adequate proof. I along with most others choose to remain anonymous for fear that my opinion or the truth could lead to being discriminated against.

posted by Anonymous: 3:48 PM, October 27, 2013

Forget the past Jim R? No way! It has steadily grown uglier to be sure. But, that was also good in a sense. It taught what a whole lot of people are rather than pretend to be. They can now be approached from a knowing perspective instead of as they might prefer.

posted by Anonymous: 7:42 PM, October 27, 2013


posted by Anonymous: 9:47 AM, October 28, 2013

That is right, take heed folks. There are many among us who say what you want to hear but sit on the other side of the fence. We unfortunately have many who have two sides to their face, sad but very true.

posted by Anonymous: 10:27 AM, October 28, 2013

And many who SIT on the day they will fall on the wrong side of the law...and pay big time. Yes folks, "TAKE HEED"!

posted by Anonymous: 11:15 AM, October 28, 2013

Rumor has it that our illustrious President has "flown the coop" his casa is up for sale and looking to buy in Chicago. As I said, this is a RUMOR.

What is not a rumor is the policia were stationed outside the EP gates for a good part of the afternoon of the 28th of October.

Is this a bad movie? or a Halloween joke?

posted by Anonymous: 9:06 AM, October 29, 2013

If, in fact, it is true that Bruce, the current ring leader, is about to cut bait and run, then there are very few that will be sad to see him leave. Same goes for John P. Stirring the pot up real good and then bugging out. It seems to be what those kind of people are all about. Maybe it's the beginning of this place straightening itself out. The best thing both of them could do is resign their positions so they can concentrate on packing up! I also think that ANY Board member that has their house up for sale should relinquish their position on the Board since they have no future vested interest in El Parque.

posted by Anonymous: 10:18 AM, October 29, 2013

Well I hope it is true about Bruce wanting out. And yes I agree that if any board member has his house up for sale he should immediately resign from the board. I do hope that neither one of them are waiting for a going away party to be thrown for them.

posted by Anonymous: 12:41 PM, October 29, 2013

With respect to Jim R.'s suggestion and comment train set out above: I fully agree with Jim R.'s idea to search for and retain a competent knowledgeable lawyer to provide reliable legal advice to the Board and Administrator as needed. I agree that some adult supervision is a good idea and needed.

One observation, though. The suggestion that those who have been maligned by the Board and Administrator should take on the responsibility and work of conducting this search is bordering on inhumane. The comment saying that these homeowners have "trust issues" with the Board and Administrator must be an understatement. The comment that closed with the words "polite disagreement is refreshing" (or something like that) was both telling and a bit touching. People don't easily forget, and probably don't forgive, the kind of treatment they've been subject to. Consequently, Jim R.'s lobbying for his idea might be more successful with another group of homeowners.

The point I want to make is as follows: Jim R. mentioned using the upcoming homeowner's meeting to discuss role of Board & Administrator, and other important matters. If the participants are all El Parque insiders, it is likely to be a situation of the blind leading the blind. Jim R. might want to think about using the resources he mentioned (Guadalajara law school, other condos, Musgrave, etc.) to find someone to come in as a guest speaker and provide a simplified presentation of Jalisco Condo law to the Board and/or the homeowners, answer questions, and that sort of thing. Video or audio of the presentation would be a good idea. (I may be wrong, but I don't think the Administrator is right person to give this kind of presentation.) Without this kind of focus, I fear the homeowners meeting would likely degenerate into the nonsense we saw last year.

posted by Anonymous: 1:44 PM, October 29, 2013

I wouldn't expect any specific group of homeowners or an individual like me to take on the search for competent counsel on their own. I suggested that a petition be circulated among ALL homeowners calling for the Board to appoint a committee to do the search, preferably before the next homeowners' meeting. If the homeowners are not interested, well, they have made their choice.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 5:27 PM, October 29, 2013

That wasn't clear, but a petition would be a good way to go ... at least to find out how much interest there is.

posted by Anonymous: 5:59 AM, October 30, 2013

Correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that the administrator's contract is renewable (or not ) each year at the AGM. If the people do not vote to renew the 1 year contract the job is over and no severance pay is necessary.

posted by Anonymous: 8:33 AM, October 30, 2013

The Administrator may decide to "fly the coop" as well.

Well, we can dream can we not? YEA! But, that will not happen. It has turned into a very lucrative job that includes a many perks. Who would want to give that up?

posted by Anonymous: 9:03 AM, October 30, 2013

Yes, the assembly votes on the administrator each year. But the way I read the law [another example of individual homeowners interpreting the law instead of having a competent lawyer to advise]is that the assembly accepts or rejects the nominee of the Board. If we reject, we have no administrator until further action is taken by the Board.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 9:20 AM, October 30, 2013

Jim R. HAS made a compelling case for EP having a competent lawyer available for advice. I think it would be interesting to see how much support there is for the idea and whether the Board would be prepared to bring someone in who might or could second-guess their decisions.

posted by Anonymous: 10:16 AM, October 30, 2013

I have sent an email to the Board outlining my arguments for the kind of legal counsel I have been advocating here.

I would expect a favorable response.

If the Board agrees, I urge readers of this Blog to give this idea support.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 11:14 AM, October 30, 2013

Good. I certainly support the idea.

posted by Anonymous: 12:28 PM, October 30, 2013

Let us remember. The administrator stood by the whole time Bruce and his cronies tried to destroy EP. She DID nothing while it was going down hill. So, if she wants to fly the coop please let her go. She really has not been any help to EP. We really need to build from the bottom up as we are at the bottom NOW.

posted by Anonymous: 5:43 PM, October 30, 2013

I would like to agree wholeheartedly with Jim R’s 14 comments but remain somewhat confused. I learned from each snippet and then lined them up to view how they meshed.

Board of director members can and should talk freely and privately among each other even if not the rest of us. Be civilized and don’t air recriminations. All Mexican lawyers are educationally deficient. Concentrate only on urging the board to search for a trustworthy attorney from Guadalajara who is competent in Jalisco condo law. This will be a herculean task. It will be extremely simple and require only a petition to our board. They won’t oppose it.

We lost the garbage suit because of religiously fanatic lawyers from Afghanistan plying their trade on Jalisco’s own reputedly corrupt judges. Those exist because the Guadalajara Reporter said so.

Jim knows all about the army and will tell anyone - just not here. This blog must only be used for hiring an attorney. Forget the past and confine thoughts only to the future. Attacking the board is not productive. Nobody will want to be on the board if they can be criticized.

Getting rid of the administrator is not doable. Any failings on her part, if they exist, can be corrected. Besides, we can’t legally do it anyhow.

Ok so thanks goes to Jim R. The pieces fit and the whole is clear, though more than he may believe.

Then I looked at the board minutes. Would they back our overwhelming need of a competent attorney?

The Administrator report section of the September board minutes makes claim the matter of unpaid fees has been turned over to the El Parque attorney. So we have an attorney. The separate Administrator report however carries no such mention. (Do they make this stuff up as they go along?) One might ask if our attorney is educationally deficient or incompetent in condo law. If so, then why is that person our attorney?

Wait! We have another. Our administrator is fully licensed to practice law in Jalisco courts. There is an excellent book devoted to Jalisco condominium law published in both English and Spanish language editions. I have seen it on her desk. One would think that, licensing, practicing, administering a condo, and study might bring her to develop competency in the subject.

So, we now employ two attorneys yet direly need another. The clarity derived from Jim R’s teaching, lobbying, or whatever it really was just clouded over and one home owner made a choice.

posted by Anonymous: 8:54 PM, October 30, 2013

I am making a choice as well. "Not to support" so now the count is 1 and 1.

posted by Anonymous: 9:59 AM, October 31, 2013

Excellent summary by Anon. 8:54 Oct 30. Although I support Jim R.'s proposal at face value as a good idea, there's more going on here than is disclosed.

Essentially, Jim R. is providing the administration with a convenient excuse for their screw ups relating to law suits and other legal issues, both past and ongoing. As such, his purposely non-controversial proposal may very well receive wide support. He paints the Board and Administrator as innocent victims of incompetent (even corrupt) lawyers, but their actions are otherwise beyond reproach, or at least beyond question. They just need a better lawyer. Yeah, right.

(As an aside ... since Jim R.'s view of widespread lawyer incompetence in Jalisco is based primarily on anecdotal evidence, I'd like to add another anecdote. I understand that a possibly significant segment of the legal community avoids taking on cases for gringo condos because these things become endless and nasty quagmires, and there's plenty of other work.)

In the event that Jim R.'s proposed search committee succeeds in finding a lawyer who is deemed to be sufficiently competent, it would certainly be good for EP at some point down the line. However, for the purposes of the current lawsuits (plural?!)referred to, all this is too little too late.

I remain of the view that it is the responsibility of the administrator to deal with routine legal matters and to identify issues that require more specialized knowledge and skills. Having a trusted outside lawyer available on ongoing retainer could very well provide needed "adult supervision", as one comment put it, but the key is knowing when to consult with this lawyer. One also wonders how the administration would respond to advice that conflicts with their own agenda. And who would know? Based on recent experience, certainly not the homeowners.

Maybe, maybe a "new" Board will be prepared to display more good faith and transparency than the current one and it WOULD be useful for them to have easy access to a competent lawyer with expertise in Jalisco Condo law and, presumably, with the EP by-laws and other areas the administrator should be capable of handling (but that's ok because that's just the way it is).

I commend Jim R. on his efforts. Not only does his proposal provide a possibly useful idea for any future legal problems that EP may face, but it gives the current administration a spin that both explains and excuses their mistakes and that is easily understood by homeowners inclined to look for easy answers. Skillfully done!

posted by Anonymous: 1:08 PM, October 31, 2013

Allow me to inject a little sunshine into these cloudy, depressing discussions. With the snowbirds beginning to return to our little piece of paradise, it might be appropriate to remind ourselves that we have a pretty damn good life here in Mexico and El Parque. Try to forget the admittedly serious underlying problems for a short while. What does every homeowner, part-time or full-time personally want during their residence here? WE WANT GOOD WEATHER. Mother nature has provided for us the second best climate in the entire world. WE WANT A SECURE ENVIRONMENT. For the past seven years our security staff has provided us with the most secure condominium complex in this area. WE WANT A SOUND INFRASTRUCTURE AND WELL-MAINTAINED LAWNS AND HOMES. Regardless of who is or believes themselves to be in charge, our staff has seen to it that our lawns are well maintained, our streets are clean and our utilities functional. WE WANT A HEATED POOL AND HOT TUB AND ATTRACTIVE COMMON AREAS. Our staff has provided those amenities reliably for seven years. WE WANT ENJOYABLE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES. Thankfully we have always had a number of homeowners that take it upon themselves to provide opportunities for activities for all their neighbors.


All of the above has been accomplished not because of the various boards but in spite of the various boards. The competence of this particular Administrator and board is, indeed, questionable but every Administrator's staff has performed admirably for the past seven years in giving us what we want.

Each of our various boards and administrators has rushed to take credit for giving us the above and the majority of homeowners has mistakenly bought into that fantasy. In truth the various boards have had nothing to do with it and they failed miserably in giving us one additional want. WE WANT REASONABLE AND SENSIBLE CONDO FEES. ALL of our various BOARDS OF DIRECTORS have unnecessarily cost the homeowners a great deal of money simply because they were trying to perform duties that they were not qualified or mandated to perform. Our bylaws clearly state that our Boards of Directors have ONLY two duties: 1) Monitor the activities of the Administrator and his/her staff; and 2) Communicate and liaison with the homeowners. NOTHING ELSE.

In every single instance that a board member or the board as a whole has assumed the duties and/or authorities of the Administrator, the homeowners have suffered financially.

It appears that we may be about to lose both our board and our administrator. Loss of a board of directors is survivable and maybe even desirable. However, we need an Administrator and staff.

We on this blog have demonstrated that we can identify problems. Can we show the same enthusiasm in finding solutions? What can the homeowners do to replace the board and/or administrator without re-creating the problem of choosing an unqualified gringo board that insists on trying to perform the duties of a Mexican Administrator?

posted by Anonymous: 7:02 PM, October 31, 2013

I like a lot of what Anonymous 7:02PM has to say. I really wish there were some kind of forum where ALL homeowners could simply bat around some of these ideas and discuss future possibilities in a relaxed, friendly manner. This needs to be done. I, too, am interested in better defining what the relation of the Board and Administrator should be; I am interested in filling positions on the future Board; and I am concerned about escalating costs.

That is why I am trying to latch on to the December 5th meeting so that we can talk there about not only the John H. case but some of these other issues. I suggested the issue of getting competent legal representation not only because it is so important but because it seems to me the least controversial among many issues and the most likely to win broad support. It can be a first step for agreement on other more complicated issues.

Let me also say that I truly wish John H. would simply pay what he owes so that that issue can be taken off the table and not overhang and impede the solution of other issues we have.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 8:33 PM, October 31, 2013

Oh, I see. A useful homeowner's meeting is predicated on the fee payment issue being resolved. That is a matter between the Administration and its lawyer and between Casa 92 and its lawyer. The Board made it the homeowners' business ... it's up to them to take it off the table.

So, same as it ever was ...

posted by Anonymous: 11:20 AM, November 01, 2013

To Anonymous 11:20 AM. I think most, if not all of us, would agree that the money John H. owes is not to the Administrator, not to the President, not to the Board, but to me and every other homeowner. So, yes, I want to receive a report, at the meeting or otherwise, on why these funds have not been collected. Let me add, that even if the Administrator, President, and Board were the devil incarnate that is no excuse for not paying me and the other homeowners what they are owed.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 1:32 PM, November 01, 2013

Nice try Jim. Almost as good as Bruce’s letter. What you did was give yourself away. Wondered how long it would take.

posted by Anonymous: 3:12 PM, 11:20 AM, November 01, 2013

Anonymous 3:12 PM. Since when am I estopped from expressing a different point of view from yours?

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 8:22 PM, November 01, 2013

You're not estopped ... your view is on this blog along with the others. I don't agree with you, but you and others are entitled to express your views in a civilized, adult manner. The real problem is that hasn't been the case.

It's always been a bit baffling to me that so much nastiness has emerged over what is less than 1% of condo fees.

posted by Anonymous: 6:24 AM, November 02, 2013

Jim R - You began your series of posts with a plea for a reasonable approach to the problems that exist and/or seem imminent. Your suggestion throughout has been, basically, that we should get a competent attorney to help deal with the problems. I, personally, don't think another attorney is the ultimate answer but at least the suggestion is positive in nature.

Your last several posts have devolved into an attack on another homeowner's actions. You do, in fact, have a perfect right to express an opinion that is different than other posters but I'm afraid your recent posts may have deflected the attention of this blog and it's readers away from more important and more complicated issues.

Frankly, the John H. issue has escalated itself out of this arena. This issue can no longer be resolved by any homeowner or body of homeowners, nor by any board member or body of board members, nor by the Administrator, nor even by John H. himself.

I have no doubt that this issue will generate a lot of moral indignation aggressively expressed at the upcoming homeowners' meeting. Regrettably, it will accomplish nothing except a waste of valuable time that could be used discussing resolvable issues. This is small consolation but the fees that currently reside at some court WILL inevitably find their way into El Parque's coffers.

Given this inevitability, we should question whether all the hate and aggressive rhetoric is in any way productive. The amount in question is not going to bankrupt El Parque and cannot go anywhere except to El Parque in the reasonably near future.

posted by Anonymous: 8:35 AM, November 02, 2013

In the beginning I thought Jim R. made some good points, but the more that I have been reading his remarks the more I think that we should not let the { Fox in the Chicken coop ) he is starting to look and sound like a snake in the grass. He seems to talk more about the John H. situation then need be. He is making excuses for the board the whole time and starting to sound like it was no fault of theirs for what has taken place in EP.

posted by Anonymous: 8:39 AM, November 02, 2013

To Jim R. -- If we want to descend into a "tit-for-tat" argument, let's agree that you repeatedly refused to entertain discussion of egregious past actions of the Board while you were making your case for a search committee for a lawyer. So, I think we can agree that a tit-for-tat analysis is almost always unproductive.

From what I've observed, positions on the Casa 92 fee payment issue have solidified to the point where no one is going to budge at this stage. I personally have no control over John H.'s fee payment case and frankly I don't think it's any of my business. Yes, I know you disagree. We could chat this out 'til the cows come home, and neither of us will change the other's mind.

So, what next? At some point, the fee payment thing WILL be resolved. However, EP will be left with a legacy of an extremely antagonistic dynamic. I suspect that John H. simply "paying his fees" one way or another will not go far in changing that.

What will help return EP to a more civil place to live is a "new" Board. I'm sure we disagree on whether or not the current Board is responsible for the present mess, but we should be able to agree that a Board comprised of persons who do NOT use public antagonism as a tool to solidify support would be a significant improvement.

Further, having a new Board that is prepared to deal courteously and diplomatically with ALL homeowners and demonstrate the knowledge and willingness to operate in accordance with the by-laws and the Jalisco condo laws would go a long way to smoothing the waters. I have ideas about more frequent informal homeowner meetings, effective communication strategy, etc. etc., but these are too hypothetical at this point to bother going into.

What about the upcoming homeowners' meeting and AGM? Well, if the participants take the position that we should and could just "ignore" the fee payment thing, take it right off the table for the time being, in the interests of considering and maybe resolving other more pressing issues where agreement is actually possible, well there's a chance of avoiding Lynch Mob Meeting 2.0.

Of course, you know and I know that this is not going to happen. What I'm suggesting requires people to step back, take a breath and exercise some adult impulse control in an environment where the opposite has become the norm for a segment of the population. So, I guess that's it. Fingers crossed that a new Board can be cobbled together that may make next year a better one.

posted by Anonymous: 11:43 AM, November 02, 2013

Maybe Anon. 8:35 and 11:43 should be printed out and distributed to all homeowners before the upcoming meetings.

posted by Anonymous: 12:15 PM, November 02, 2013

NOTE: We are currently operating on a limited basis due to equipment failure and working with a temporary but not fully functional fix. This will continue to be the case until at least next Monday and could extend until who knows when. Some of the last several comments were delayed in posting and originally appeared in incorrect order. That has been corrected. Please continue as usual but with patience.

posted at 12:50 PM, November 02, 2013

Reply to: Jim R Casa 9 1:32 Nov. 1

You have lost any credibility you may have had with me after that post. If anyone should appreciate the the law, I would think it would be an attorney as you claim to have been. No lawyer that I know of would have made a statement like you did.

I've heard about people reinventing themselves when they cross the border. It appears you should have picked an easier profession to impersonate. My apologies if I'm wrong. If you are indeed a lawyer.....try to start thinking like one again.

posted by Anonymous: 1:39 PM, November 02, 2013

Suggestion for Jim R. (and the Board)---

In mid-November, hold an informal homeowner's information meeting on the Casa 92 fee payment issue to allow those who are "concerned" to get answers from the board, vent spleen, etc. Perhaps it would make sense to circulate informal minutes summarizing the meeting for distribution to homeowners who chose not to attend. THEN keep the issue OFF the agenda for the formal homeowners' meeting in early December, allowing for discussion and possible resolution of other issues.

posted by Fed Up: 6:20 AM, November 03, 2013

I thought Casa 92 is already off the table because it has been stated many - many times that it has been paid to the courts and it is up to our so called Administration or President to go and retrieve the payment which neither wants to do except carry this situation on what do you want to do back to the early 1900s, find a tree, create a lynch mop, and hang these people so some of you are really happy? Let us carry on and worry about the other things that the board has created like the high electricity bills in the club house and wanting to turning down the heat in the pool and hot tub plus what ever other costs that they have created in EP because of their silly ideas. { like getting rid of our garbage people and paying some other costs that nobody needs to be reminded about any more, it has cost all of us to much already in paradise }

posted by Anonymous: 8:00 AM, November 03, 2013

My 6:20 AM today suggestion above is in response to the expressed concern (Jim R. and others, above) that the Casa 92 issue would hijack the formal homeowners' meeting in Dec.

Having an earlier, separate, informal information meeting on the topic would allow those who feel they need info. from the board, and the opportunity to express their views, would have that chance without turning the formal Dec. meeting into "Lynch Mob Meeting 2.0", as someone put it.

Of course, my suggestion is based on the assumption that the board does not want another lynch mob meeting, based on their overturning of Bruce's provocative email letter to all homeowners. I could be wrong.

posted by Fed Up: 10:42 AM, November 03, 2013

Bruce? Bruce who?

Did the cartel not send him on his way?

posted by Anonymous: 1:57 PM, November 03, 2013

I have a question like many other owners in EP. have, I know a lot of what we hear and read are rumors or personal opinions but if half of what we read is true it really starts to make me wonder what really is going on here. If our president and some of his board members are leaving or not doing their job and have their houses up for sale how does this effect all of us as to what happened at the AGM and the extraordinary meeting held this past February? All the rules and By Laws that where made - and with the ballots being destroyed - who can we trust now? I would think that everything that happened back then should not be in affect [ start from zero ] as the saying goes. So we should just forget what happened back in February as we have no proof of any thing and redo it if the owners chose to do that.

posted by Anonymous: 6:00 PM, November 03, 2013

What has happened to common decency - comments such as by the previous person posting does nothing but belittle yourself. Such behaviour is consistent with someone who must feel they are in control or have the upper hand by denigrating and insulting others. The issue of casa 92 will continue to cloud most issues that need to be addressed. Casa 92 continually defers to his lawyer when asked questions, rather than answering point blank why he did what he did. He is our (Edit: personal defamation deleted).

posted by Anonymous: 6:11 PM, November 03, 2013

What post are you referring to? You did not state a time of the post so we can refer to it and you.

posted by Anonymous: 7:00 PM, November 03, 2013

Common decency 6:11? Let me tell you about that. It is not about money. It is about people. In the last year we’ve been treated to several outrages to common decency. They included a lynch mob meeting of howling idiots prodded to cover administrative incompetence and dishonesty. That was soon to show in outright personal viciousness. My friends were subjected to crowd shouted and neighbor issued verbal insults along with physical threat. Then came deportation attempts, and criminal investigations. Hurt my friends and you hurt me. Feeling the pain of that is common decency. Distancing from it is its phony opposite. Those sorts of common indecencies are the prime issues here. Your money is not. I expect your meeting to be a repeat of what worked so well for them a year ago. I’ve attended my last with commonly indecent people and won’t be there.

posted by Anonymous: 8:07 PM, November 03, 2013

Post to 6;11 you really need to read all the posts not just what you think is important to you.

posted by Anonymous: 8:59 PM, November 03, 2013

Re. Anon. 8:07 pm -- I AGREE! Nothing's going to be resolved while a certain faction of EP remains weirdly obsessed with the Casa 92 issue, regardless of the fact that the amount of money is relatively minor (less than 1% of condo fees). Another season of nastiness has begun. Welcome back to Paradise.

posted by Anonymous: 6:37 AM, November 04, 2013

And welcome to the new season of the Testosterone Games!

Ok, ok ... I'm being sexist, but it looks to me like that's an element of what's happening here ... what a damn shame.

posted by Anonymous: 10:42 AM, November 04, 2013

well if the monies owing seem to be such a small percentage to you, then why don't you make a donation in that amount to el parque and then we can move on to other issues.

posted by Anonymous: 12:00 PM, November 04, 2013

There's nothing wrong with the person trying to inject a little perspective into this thing.

I do like the term "Testosterone Games". We really should be trying to lighten up a bit on the fee payment issue, but I know that's asking far too much.

posted by Anonymous: 2:05 PM, November 04, 2013

I have concerns regarding a couple of issues and am not sure what I have heard is true. I’ve heard rumors of a labour issure relating to a former employee and wish to have the information verified. Then there is the fee payment issue.

1. Is the current labour issue with the employee who left for”personal reasons” or a different employee? My understanding of labour law in Mexico is that it doesn’t matter who is right and who is wrong. Once a labour lawsuit is filed, it becomes a matter of how much the employer will have to pay. If memory serves me correctly, the current Administrator was here when the “Trash” labour lawsuit took place. As well, the current Administrator was here when a gardener was let go and yet there was no lawsuit, as far as I know. If it is true there is a current labour lawsuit, has the administration exercised due diligence to limit the amount the condominium will have to pay? Presumably, something was learned from the “Trash” labour issue since there was no labour lawsuit when the gardener was let go.

2. I am very confused about the fee payment issue. Why has the person owing the fees been silent on the issue while the Administration is being vocal and energetic in its inciting of homeowners? According to the minutes of meetings, the issue is now with the court. I think we should let the judicial system work and decide the case. From what I’ve observed, when one party to a lawsuit has little or no valid legal action available, they tend to make it personal. This then becomes socially unhealthy for all parties involved. Suggestion: To defuse the fee payment issue let’s all step back and let the judicial system work.

posted by Anonymous: 2:15 PM, November 04, 2013, 2013

Re. fee payment -- we're probably looking at another lynch mob meeting. I think I'll have to walk away from that one.

posted by Anonymous: 9:11 AM, November 05, 2013

Why is it that we never see the attachments to the BoD monthly minutes? it happens every month NO attachments to be found!?!, so why bother advising the readers to "see attachments"?

And why would our Administrator need a CPA to assist her?

posted by Anonymous: 9:15 AM, November 05, 2013

To anonymous of Nov 4, 12:00 PM. Please don't be ridiculous. 10 people could step forth and contribute the amount of John H's fees to El Parque and it would not stop you from attacking John H. In fact, it would probably encourage you to view those contributions as an excuse to attack 10 more people. It is amazing to me the number of people who believe that attacking someone else somehow increases their own self-worth.

The money has been paid and it is sitting in a court somewhere specifically earmarked for El Parque. It's just waiting for the Administrator to pick it up. I'm not supporting John's payment methods but neither am I supporting your perverse need to make unnecessary and unproductive attacks about something that can now only be resolved by going to get the money

posted by Anonymous: 9:57 AM, November 05, 2013

I assume that the funds deposited into court way back when was only meant to cover money owed at the time of the deposit. So even if that amount were correct, what about interest on that money and what about condo fees payable thereafter? How will this latter debt be settled? So the statement that the money is there and waiting simplifies a more complicated situation.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 11:15 AM, November 05, 2013

my point exactly anonymous 9:57 - "It is amazing to me the number of people who believe that attacking someone else somehow increases their own self-worth." If you read all the hostile comments on this blog with respect to our administrator and our board members, then obviously there are many people in here wanting to increase their own self worth . Antagonistic feelings towards (Edit: Name changed to "John H") may continue as he began this whole crusade by wanting to pay cash in the office and yes even though under Jalisco code this is permissable, it was decided by the majority of the community in a democratic vote that this was not the desired form of payment. So just to prove his point, he has put the community through all kinds of aggravation and is solely responsible for the negative feelings towards him and his cohorts.

posted by Anonymous: 11:23 AM, November 05, 2013

Once again Jim [ 11;55] it seems that the ONLY thing that you are interested is in John H. paying his Cond. fees and hoping that you can get enough other people to think the same way as hoping that these people will help you get elected to the board in Feb. It has been mentioned many times that the present board and Administer are supposedly taking care of this so why keep posting the same thing over and over?

posted by Anonymous: 12:05 PM, November 05, 2013

Anonymous 1:42 Nov 4

"Testosterone Games" That IS funny, OLD men holding onto the little testosterone they have, playing stupid games to prove what? that they have balls! Maybe in their past life they were accused of not having any ??

What about the "ladies" who support them? what do we call them?

posted by Anonymous: 3:07 PM, November 05, 2013

Jim R- Based on your most recent post, it is clear that you have made some erroneous assumptions and/or have been given some incorrect, incomplete and/or slanted information. I must admit that I know for certain very little more than you but I do know that NO HOMEOWNER has been given the full truth regarding either side of this issue. I am also pretty much convinced that both sides honestly believe they are on the side of the angels and neither the administration nor the homeowner in question is going to yield to ANY AMOUNT of pressure from public opinion. It is depressing to realize that a huge number of homeowners are making judgments based on nothing more than assumptions, rumors, and unsupportable accusations. Any resolution of this issue that might bear any resemblance to justice CAN ONLY BE MADE within the courts where the issue currently resides.

Naturally, everyone in El Parque is only willing to believe what makes them feel most comfortable or self-righteous. All of us need to wash our hands of this issue and let the proper external legal authorities resolve it based on documented evidence and testimony. It most certainly won't be resolved on this blog or at any homeowners' meeting. At any rate, I'm through discussing it.

posted by Anonymous: 4:28 PM, November 05, 2013

I actually did some research into this and I can tell you that the POLICY in question was voted on at the 2010 AGM. It reads "NO CASH and NO CHECK " will be accepted. That means the Administration made the whole policy NULL and VOID a long time ago by allowing homeowners to pay by check. How can we arbitrarily trash half a policy and expect to be able to uphold the other half? It makes no sense. Therefore, many homeowners are violating the very policy they argue that we should all be living by. It would be absurd to think we have any legal right to charge interest to anyone that attempted to pay their condo fees, on time, by cash or check, in the manner prescribe in our bylaw and denied the right to do so.

posted by Anonymous: 6:16 PM, November 05, 2013

Anonymous 6:16 - I must admit you just converted me! I never looked at it that way. Thank you

posted by Anonymous: 8:26 PM, November 05, 2013

Do the part timers and some full timers pay by check? YES. It's so convenient that way, is it not? Who will admit to it? That is a good question, will we ever know? of course not.

posted by Anonymous: 12:16 PM, November 06, 2013

I want this incessant squabbling to end. Right NOW. When my children behaved this way, they'd be sent to their rooms for a time out. I don't care who's to blame for all this b******t, but Team Board looks to me like they have a lot more to answer for than John H. It doesn't matter. There is a dispute. Handle it like adults. There are lawyers to do the arguing. This has gone well beyond anything you guys could claim is reasonable or necessary. In fact, it's all starting to look pretty pathological. Just do what you have to do to settle all this nonsense and leave me out of it.

posted by Anonymous: 12:35 PM, November 06, 2013

12.35pm We may all be in it when asked to pay big $ for special assessments.

posted by Anonymous: 3:03 PM, November 06, 2013

So that is that, for now. All we can do is wait for the whole affair to blow up one way or another.

Has anyone seen our President? How long has he been gone? My guess is he will not return. Reminds someone else who flew the coop this year.

posted by Anonymous: 10:21 AM, November 07, 2013

The John H issue should have been resolved a long time ago. If our POLICY states "no checks and no cash in the office" and many homeowners pay by check then refusing to accept John H's cash amounts to selective enforcement of that policy. The first attempt to pay was made in JANUARY 2012 and several documented attempts were made in the same year. Why he chose to pay the way he did is his business and his business only. It is the duty of the administrator (according to our own by-laws) to collect the fees. Therefore, it's not up to many homeowners who think they need to express input that could easily be perceived as defamation of character or harassment. If his method of payment was not legally proper, the court would not have accepted it. This matter is now in the hands of the Federal Court and no homeowner or BOD can resolve this issue regardless of the amount of homeowner meetings we convene.

posted by Anonymous: 7:27 PM, November 07, 2013

A number of you have commented that the John H. affair is now in the courts and should be left to the lawyers and court to reach a decision. May I humbly ask you to at least consider another point of view.

[I will use the first person singular (“I’) in this discussion, for ease of presentation, to refer to me and to the other homeowners.]

Because John H. owes the condo fees to me and because I am paying, and will continue paying, the lawyer(s) to collect those fees, I am the plaintiff in this case. In no other situation, does a plaintiff hire legal counsel and then simply walk away until the courts make a decision. I don’t see why this case is any different.

As plaintiff, I would like to know who my lawyer(s) are (is). I would like to hear an explanation from that lawyer of what he has done and why such a case, which appears to be rather straight-forward, is taking so long to resolve. I would like to hear whether he thinks he will be successful and how he will accomplish that. Depending on the answer, I may decide to hire another lawyer or take a different legal tactic.

In making the above inquiry, I would abstain from asking for any information to be made public that might jeopardize El Parque’s legal position. On the other hand, I think I should know as much about my legal position as John H. knows about it.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 12:16 AM, November 08, 2013


posted by Anonymous: 5:33 AM, November 08, 2013

re. Jim R. 12:16 -- yes, answers to your questions, and those of others, would be welcome. There has been a dearth of reliable, accurate information on this issue provided by the administration.

posted by Anonymous: 1:46 PM, November 08, 2013

You kidding!

posted by Anonymous: 4:10 PM, November 08, 2013

Is it true the administration has engaged Rob Ford to perform at our December 5th meeting?

posted by Anonymous: 7:40 AM, November 09, 2013

He should feel quite at home if the meeting is anything like the one we experienced Nov 17, 2012..

"Ranting and Raving" is the theme of the party, the ring leader is back and the inmates will follow the leader!

posted by Anonymous: 12:57 PM, November 09, 2013

Re. Jim R. 12:16
I would have thought John H. would be the "plaintiff" or "complainant" or "debtor" or whatever the Mexican equivalent is. I don't understand how the homeowners can be "plaintiffs" in the fee payment case.

If the administrator screwed-up initial procedures in collecting the fees from the court, why would/should the homeowners be on the hook for the lawyer's fees? Of course we don't know the details of why the process has taken so long, and given the usual way the administration works, we likely never will.

Asserting that John H.'s fees "belong" to the homeowners and as such they (by extension) have the right to harass him in an effort to enforce payment is something of a stretch and, I think, intentionally provocative. Certainly, there's a substantial segment of homeowners that has bought into that analysis and that's why we're going to have another lynch mob meeting. But if that's what the majority wants, who am I to say it's inappropriate or improper? Mob rule usually does seem like a good idea to those who constitute a mob.

posted by Anonymous: 2:26 PM, November 09, 2013

Well said.

posted by Anonymous: 4:51 PM, November 09, 2013

Seems Jim R. wasn’t getting what he wanted here and so yesterday turned to a select email circuit composed of those possibly believed more convincible. I and some others did not receive one. A friend did. In the interest of full information, here is what he wrote.

“There have recently been a number of people on (Edit: Name blanked)'s blog (one never knows how many) arguing that, because the John H(Edit: Full name blanked) nonpayment case has been turned over to lawyers and is in the court, it should stay there and be discussed and settled there. In other words, there should be no meeting of homeowners to discuss the issue, nor should the issue be a topic of discussion on the blog itself or anywhere else. However, I believe the matter should be discussed, and would like to share with you my left-of-center take on this issue. …”

It then continues and finishes with the content of his "humble" first person singular fantasy posted here at 12:16 AM, November 8.

posted by Anonymous: 7:37 AM, November 10, 2013

The following is a little pretend conversation between "Me" and a hypothetical homeowner ("Hh"):

Me - "The President's letter of Sept. 30 said that John H. owes at least 57,712 pesos, while the court says that 42,000 pesos is complete payment for 2012 and 2013. For the sake of this discussion and ease of calculation, let's just say that John H. owes 50,000 pesos. A very rough conversion would put that at $5,000. If we divide that by 109 homes, we come up with about $45 (or 450 pesos) per home that is owed by John H. Agreed?"
Hh - "Yes, very roughly, but even though it isn't a lot of money, that pisses me off."
Me -- "Why?"
Hh -- "Because he's screwing us all and destroying El Parque."
Me -- "How?"
Hh -- "He's defying the Board and making our lives miserable when he should just be playing by the rules like everyone else."
Me -- "What rules?"
Hh -- "Well, people get upset when someone makes trouble."
Me -- "What trouble?"
Hh -- "He's not playing by the rules and for the sake of peace and quiet he should just back off and pay his fees."
Me -- "How is he disturbing your peace and quiet"?
Hh -- "Well, not directly, but the Board says he is, so ... And there are bills that need to be paid, and he's not pulling his weight which really, really bothers me."
Me -- "I would have thought that the Board's, and the supporters', relentless social persecution of John H. would be what is disturbing your peace and quiet. Also, do you know what bills can't be paid?"
Hh -- "No, no ... he's just getting what he deserves for being so stubborn and difficult."
Me -- "I see. You don't like him?"
Hh -- "It's more than that. He's screwing us all with his nonsense."
Me -- "Ok ... we're going in circles now. Who is responsible for last year's lynch mob meeting, and the likely repeat this year?"
Hh -- "That doesn't matter. The President and board members are just defending our right to peace and quiet and having fees paid on time."
Me -- "By firing people up with misinformation and propaganda?"
Hh -- "You're full of crap. The president and Board members are defending us all, and we're pissed off."
Me -- "Because you've been told you are?"
Hh -- "Of course not. I don't want to continue this ... you're wrong and that's that."
Me -- "Ok. Am I to assume that you don't want me to confuse the issue with facts?"
Hh -- stalks off in a huff.

For your consideration ...

posted by Anonymous: 7:45 AM, November 10, 2013

to November 9 - 7:40 a.m. - why would we need Rob Ford at the meeting when we already have (Edit: Personal defamation deleted).

posted by Anonymous: 10:19 AM, November 10, 2013

To Anonymous 7:37AM In quoting my message in the email, why did you intentionally leave out the following words?: "I think the meeting in December will be most fruitful if there is some kind of rational exchange of views beforehand. Please feel completely free to disagree."

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 10:44 AM, November 10, 2013

I hope at least some of the persons who received Jim R.'s email, reproduced here by Anon 7:45 Nov 10, will take the time to look over the recent train of blog comments, many of which are thoughtful and informative, even if there is not much agreement with Jim R.

In fact, on Nov 30 a 6:20 and 10:42, I suggested that the administration could hold a separate informal homeowners' meeting for those who are concerned with the John H. fee payment issue in order to provide information and to allow for "venting of spleen". That suggestion was made in response to Jim R.'s assertion that a useful homeowners' meeting would not be possible unless John H. paid his fees. My thinking (well, hope) was that the worse of the lynch mob dynamic could take place in that informal meeting, and the more formal meeting could proceed in a relatively civilized manner. Oh well.

Regarding the above "pretend conversation" ... I've had a couple of those! Less polite, though ...

posted by Fed Up: 10:46 AM, November 10, 2013

If you pay attention the intent of my prior comments, I do not wish the December meeting to be about John H’s character or about his motives for not paying. That would be a fruitless discussion and a distraction from what is now most relevant. The relevant fact is the matter has been in the courts for a while (I am not sure how long). As “plaintiff” I want to know what has happened in the courts, why nothing has been collected so far, what are my prospects of succeeding, and I want to decide how to proceed in the future.

Yes, too, I would like this meeting or subsequent ones to discuss other important issues that El Parque may or may not have: for example, costs, compliance with appropriate laws (and here I suggested hiring an expert in these matters to address us), upcoming elections of the Board. Homeowners should be able to suggest other topics for discussion or reject those I have suggested.

posted by Jim R., Casa 9: 12:50 PM, November 10, 2013

I'm really FED UP with the whole affair. Why don't you ask the Administrator why she has not picked up the money? it sat at the State court for months now it's at the Fed level. Why was it moved? Does the Fed Judge have to put his stamp of approval before the next move? Does our Administrator have all the documentation ready NOW? Does she know something that she is not advising us? What a bloody mess.

posted by Anonymous: 9:02 AM, November 11, 2013

It has been a while since I last posted on this or any blog, but in the interim I have tried to keep up with the comments posted herein. I have noticed in my readings, that there seems to be a continual obsession with the John H. matter. Like a train wreck, there are a certain number of people, for whatever reason, who are absolutely transfixed by one thing, the train wreck. They do not necessarily care how or what caused the wreck, their only purpose is to see the aftermath and satisfy a morbid curiosity. However there is a trait the onlookers all have in common, and that is a need to Blame someone without knowing all the real facts. Since all who read this post seem to "KNOW" every detail of the John H. transgression, I do not feel the need to rehash the details. But like the train wreck, only after the real information is disseminated from the people involved, do we truly have the total picture.

I do however find it interesting now that the snowbirds have arrived, that there seems to be an elevation in the tone of certain members of this community, to once again attack and vilify John H, for the single purpose of distracting the homeowners from the very real problem of an administration run amuck.

For those who are here for the winter break that feel that the information they get from the meetings of the Board every month are in fact,"Facts", then I would suggest that they are the onlookers to the train wreck. It is also very interesting that for the last several years we had not heard a peep from the homeowner known as Jim R.,and now that we may have vacancies on the Board, Jim R. has opted to once again guide this condo in the ways of "Mexican and Condo Laws". Mr. R has not raised his voice on this blog or in e-mails to the homeowners, to my knowledge, about the way this administration has operated. From the issue of the clubhouse that is run by Board members, to the way the Board passes motions to proceed in spending Homeowners Money. I believe the only money the Board has the legal right to spend, is the money that is included for specific purposes in the budget and passed by the homeowners.

When we get to the AGM and the special assessment is revealed, it will naturally be "blamed" on John H.


When members of the board, who have in fact suggested that the condo consider perhaps cutting worker hours, and the heat to the jacuzzi to cut costs, do not be surprised when it is revealed all of these cuts are necessary, because one homeowner was at fault.

I would suggest that when reasonable people ask reasonable questions and insist on real answers, only then will we know what caused the train wreck.

posted T.Gibbard Casa 90: 9:22 AM, November 11, 2013

John is evil. That I know
Cause the Board has told me so.
Even though he's paid his debts,
He still deserves the hate he gets

I don't care that I don't know
about the laws in Mexico.
I just know where I come from
To not obey is really dumb.

I think his home should just be sold
Cause he won't do what he is told
El Parque life is now just great
Cause now I have someone to hate.

posted by Anonymous: 10:01 AM, November 11, 2013

re. T. Gibbard comment -- You've summarized the issues very very accurately. And to Anon 10:01 -- you too!

We can only hope that there will be enough voices of reason to make an impact at the upcoming meetings ...

posted by Anonymous: 12:15 PM, November 11, 2013

Board member John M. asked at the last monthly meeting if the money being held by the court is still currently retrievable and was told by the Administrator that it was not available since the case was now with the Federal court. That was totally inaccurate. The funds are still at the local court. All the BOD has to do is show up with the proper paperwork and they can pick it up. The Federal case would then be dismissed. Yet another example of the inaccurate info that is being given out.

Janet H

posted by Janet H: 10:21 AM, November 12, 2013

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