Proxy Vote

 

All owners from jardines, you are running out of time to put through your proxy vote, If you want your President to be elected don't just sit there and leave it to others,

All Presidents from the first AGMs , that stood up to the administrator for what they believed have now been voted out , we have 2 new Level 2 Presidents and numerous new level 3s ,

I wish the new Presidents Good Luck , you will need it

Dave

Two words Dave.

Apathy and inevitable!

 My keyholder has sent me a rather perturbing email, he says that the proxy form also has a section regarding keeping or changing the administrator. He says that any single garden that votes with a majority to change the administrator will be cut adrift to manage themselves, if that is true we could end up with a patchwork of administrators all over the resort. That surely cannot benefit anyone.

Has anyone else been made aware of this?

Dakey

There is a section on the proxy form in relation to the administrator but there is no mention of cutting off a garden who votes to remove them. I dont see how they could do this as surely they either manage the resort or they dont. If a garden is cut adrift are they not allowed to pass through srcurity?? It does seem very odd that each garden is having an agm. Again, surely it is about the resort as a whole??

Yes - I see this is stated on the Condado services site!
Why and by what authority have these changes been! According to the services site we could end up having 13 different administrators if all jardines vote no for mileniun!
Anyone got any answers - divide and conquer???
MG

What a load of rubbish!!  Don't forget the person who does the 'other' site is a new level 2 president and I can't believe she has written such drivel - scaremongering I think the word is!!!

Sorry I spoke!

Iits not directed at you MG it just got me so annoyed  when I read it and you are right they are trying to divide and conquer

The proxy voting form does indeed give the choice to vote ML back in or not however at no point has it been made clear I would be voting for ML to be retained just for the garden I reside in.

There is no sense in having multiple administrators.

Equally on what basis do I consider my vote - The place looks great but the finances appear to be in a dire situation.

If the gardens are separate would the finances be separated? if so I would hope that my garden being mostly occupied would have limited debtors (opinion not fact before I'm jumped on!). but then I could end up on a great garden but when I step out into the wider site the place could look a tip if finance isn't released to upkeep. Again the arguement for one administrator prevails.

Surely it is our presidents that are closest to the administrator and therefore their decision to retain or expel the administrator. It is my duty to vote for the individual that I beleive will best serve my interests in my garden? i.e the 13 presidents should vote (taking consideration of their gardens occupants preference) as to whom manages our resort.

Being a resident of Naranjos and having made my proxy vote (supplying a bank certified copy of my passport!) it appears I have voted without knowledge on what basis the vote was for.

Brett,

I think you will find that even if you did vote to get rid of ML it would have been futile as ML used the banks majority block vote for the empty properties to keep themselves in!!!

Please tell me if I am wrong on this anyone on that side of the fence!

We'll be able to see exactly how the banks, and everyone else, voted once the minutes are published (which, because ML are such an efficient administrator, should be very soon - next week for those areas that already have had their AGM's).

Just read the rubbish on the services site about gardens being cast adrift , what makes anyone think that we could end up with 13 different administrators ?

surely all the ROGUE gardens would get together and organise one adminitrator to cover them , lets be honest the only reason that rubbish was posted was to give them something to laugh at tonight while drinking their cocoa in their little fantasy world .

If there had been any mention of that situation arising it would have been said at the AGM and would have been posted by a number of sources , unless of course ML only confided in one person ie the source , that seems totally plausable to me .

I agree that the majority of the original 13 gardens probably have the minority of debtors so it would not make sense to cut off the  most reliable source of income .

Ken

Yep i have just read that tripe i thought it was down to the presidents on our behalf who chooses an administrator to run the site  not them, so why vote for them, they don't scare me i am from Yorkshire

Another change made by ML

Alan 

The finances for the resort are split between the urban entity, level 1, level 2 and level 3. The individual level 3 budgets are based on the community fees charged to each owner of the garden / block. Then the level 3 needs to pay towards level 2 , 1 and urban entity. Different charges being applicable to each level. For example roads, lights, swimming pools, security etc. the amount left which is very small is left with the level 3 budget. However the bank accounts sit at level 2 and above so even if level 3 wanted to spend something then level 2 needs to sign the cheque. Additionally the accounts presented by the administrator are confusing and trying to work out what is actually available to spend at level 3 is almost impossible. At the moment we have the same administrator looking after the urban entity and level 1 and level 2 so they are free, unless challenged by level 2 presidents, to move money around different bank accounts. Therefore it is difficult to monitor the amounts that are in accounts. Whilst I am not suggesting we do this at this time in some ways forming a different entity for a subset of gardens and blocks would actually help control the amount of money spent. It would not affect the overall look of the resort as we would still contribute to that.

Thanks for the clarity. - My view prevails that one administrator is better than multiple whether self administrated or not.

Brett