Currently, most of the members of the executive board belong to the Glenhardie Country Club. This creates a conflict of interest when it comes to setting the terms of the license agreement.
For many years the executive board has entered into a license agreement with the Glenhardie Country Club. The terms of the license violate the rights of the condominium owners to access the common elements of the country club, namely the pool, tennis courts and golf course. The agreement requires anyone joining the club to also pay for a minimum amount of food and drinks at the clubhouse, but the clubhouse is NOT a common element. The board cannot make access to the common element (pool, tennis courts and golf course) contingent on paying for access to a non-common element (clubhouse).
You simply cannot bar access to the common element! Owners must be allowed to purchase access to the common elements of the country club on an a la carte basis. This would follow the Declaration and preserve the rights of the owners.
It is my understanding the license agreement was written by a member of the club who is an attorney. It is written in a way that benefits the country club rather than the condominium owners. Also, there has been no audit of the country club finances in many years, and the club is reluctant to share their financial statements with the condominium's executive board.
Why has this been allowed to happen?
For many years, a majority of the executive board have belonged to the club. In fact, people have been recruited to run for the board BECAUSE they belong to the club. Considering it is a conflict of interest to belong to the club while also being responsible for approving the license agreement, all board members should be required to disclose their membership status. It is also a policy that club members are "grandfathered in" at the cost structure in effect when they join the club, in other words their fees stay the same; long-term members often pay substantially less than new members. Therefore, board members should also disclose the rate they pay.
Another problem is the 25-signature requirement to run for the board. It is almost impossible for anyone to obtain 25 signatures unless they are assisted by a current board member. Considering that we only have access to our own building and that (on average) only 50% of each building is owner-occupied, a person only has access to about 10 or 11 owners who could sign the form. I have asked the board to do away with this requirement, but they have not removed it. The signature requirement is a way for the board to control who runs for open seats.
For many years the executive board has entered into a license agreement with the Glenhardie Country Club. The terms of the license violate the rights of the condominium owners to access the common elements of the country club, namely the pool, tennis courts and golf course. The agreement requires anyone joining the club to also pay for a minimum amount of food and drinks at the clubhouse, but the clubhouse is NOT a common element. The board cannot make access to the common element (pool, tennis courts and golf course) contingent on paying for access to a non-common element (clubhouse).
You simply cannot bar access to the common element! Owners must be allowed to purchase access to the common elements of the country club on an a la carte basis. This would follow the Declaration and preserve the rights of the owners.
It is my understanding the license agreement was written by a member of the club who is an attorney. It is written in a way that benefits the country club rather than the condominium owners. Also, there has been no audit of the country club finances in many years, and the club is reluctant to share their financial statements with the condominium's executive board.
Why has this been allowed to happen?
For many years, a majority of the executive board have belonged to the club. In fact, people have been recruited to run for the board BECAUSE they belong to the club. Considering it is a conflict of interest to belong to the club while also being responsible for approving the license agreement, all board members should be required to disclose their membership status. It is also a policy that club members are "grandfathered in" at the cost structure in effect when they join the club, in other words their fees stay the same; long-term members often pay substantially less than new members. Therefore, board members should also disclose the rate they pay.
Another problem is the 25-signature requirement to run for the board. It is almost impossible for anyone to obtain 25 signatures unless they are assisted by a current board member. Considering that we only have access to our own building and that (on average) only 50% of each building is owner-occupied, a person only has access to about 10 or 11 owners who could sign the form. I have asked the board to do away with this requirement, but they have not removed it. The signature requirement is a way for the board to control who runs for open seats.
This page is under construction.
