Jonathan update: Ousting legal

New Board President Mike Liebe reports that association attorney David Hellmuth vetted the actions of Tuesday night's meeting.

The attorney found that “it was done properly,” Liebe stated, Wednesday afternoon.

Also, only a majority was needed to pass the original motion, not a two-thirds majority, as first reported.

The original story was changed to reflect the updates.

40 people have decided to play God. What will they do next?

They do not deserve anyone's respect and their candidates deserve no votes.

The leftover board members should right the wrong and negate the action of the mob.

Apparently fellow Jonathan Association Member and homeowner "hadhad", who prefers not to share his/her name, hasn't been paying attention, or like many on the ousted Board of Directors, prefers to provide misleading information.

As a "write-in" candidate, Mr. Kerber sat on the board with only 10 people voting for him; seven homeowners and three apartment owners. By my count, that's 10 people who wanted him representing their wishes vs. the 40 + 42 apt votes who preferred he be removed. Again, by my count, 41 people is 4 times as many as the 10 people who placed him on the board. When his write-in candidacy was challenged, the Association's attorney clearly said the Association was in violation of the Governing Documents. But when asked about the attorney's response, the response from the JRG led board was, "the By-laws don't say you can't have write-in votes". This is true, but as anyone who is experienced with homeowner association documents will tell you, the Governing Documents state what must be or can be done, not what you can't do.

In late 2006, a non-JRG board member discovered the attorney's letter and shared it with those on the board and those attending the meeting. The board member stated he was very upset the board leadership failed to share the attorney's letter with the other board members. Was this a "cover up"?

Mr. Davis received five votes in 2005 to be appointed to the board. He was then elected President by the JRG board members. The largest homeowner association in the state, "larger than most cities in Minnesota" as quoted by Mr. Davis, was being led by a vote of FIVE! This was in January, whereas the JRG members sitting on the board COULD have waited until after the election in February to see what the desires of the homeowners revealed as they had previously campaigned. They said they cared about the wishes of the majority of homeowners, clearly, they only cared about the wishes of those who agreed with them, which over the last several years, has clearly been a minority of the homeowners in this association.

As President, Mr. Davis denied the request of several homeowners who requested the mailing list of Association Members so board candidates could send a mailing to homeowners and apartment owners. This was a clear violation of the law as confirmed by the Association's attorney. Would Mr. Davis still have won had he demonstrated integrity and provided the information? Possibly, but we'll never know.

Didn't last years election reveal that including the apartment owners, only 40% of people supported Davis? Didn't the "Special Meeting" in October 2007 reveal that only 26% of those who spoke supported the ridiculous lawsuit?

Mr. Neidert was sitting on the board only by the voice of five, yes five homeowners and both Mr. Kuhlman and Mr. Navratil sat on the board with less than one-third of those voting, including apartment owners, supporting them.

"Hadhad" suggests that because of my motion and the overwhelming approval of those who took the time to attend the Annual Meeting of the largest homeowner’s association in the state, Chaska Herald blog readers shouldn’t support “their” board candidates. Who are “their” candidates? If the inference is The PBJ, the PBJ group was never made aware a motion would be put forward. As the PBJ has done over the last four (4) years, the PBJ leadership reminded the group of the meeting and encouraged its email readers to support its candidates. Ask your neighbors who attended the Annual Meeting. Using "hadhad's logic, readers shouldn’t vote for John McCain either.

Posts like "hadhad's" further illustrates that some of the minority of Jonathan Association homeowners who supported these malintended board members prefer the election irregularities of the JRG vs. following the rules provided by the Association they chose to live in.

Now "hadhad", who is REALLY trying to play God here?

Respectfully,
Michael Sibley

I attended the Annual Meeting to make my voice heard. It is a sad fact that of 2,900 member units that we had less than 50 people show up representing just over 100 units (1-60-unit Apt. owner included).

Another VERY SAD FACT is that of 9-Board Members, only 5-showed up at the ANNUAL Meeting, despite all the controversy, pending lawsuit, etc. Yes, I voted to remove the 6-board members per Mike Sibley's motion, 4-of which did not even bother to show up for the Annual Meeting. I guess we can see how high their priorities to the Association rate to themselves.

With the lawsuit enacted by this small minority threatening to potentially cost every member untold thousands of dollars along with the devaluation of your property.

I agree with some points on both sides of this issue and see the need for more Jonathan Members with common sense and willing to listen to both sides to get involved to do what is right to protect and enhance our property values. Fact is for myself, I saw 5-people present themselves to the Association to run for 3-seats up for election, and each one of them vowed to work for the Association and to listen to both sides.

Yes, I agree there are some changes that should be made. YES, I agree there are some housekeeping issues that have brought to light with the lawsuit that need to be resolved.

In my opinion the meeting started with one agenda item from the President and Vice President, which seemed to be to disband the whole Association. These two acted in MY OPINION as if they were the High School Bully's and they were going to have their way no matter what anybody else said.

Question: Since the City of Chaska will not take over any of the Association Property, How much do you think it will cost you to form your own Association to take over, maintain and provide Liability Insurance for the Association property in your neighborhood?

I would doubt that many of us would come up with a fee for dues even close to being as low as the Jonathan Association dues of $195 per year. Just look at your neighborhood and what the Association owns. Trails, MailBox/Bus Shelter Buildings, Tot Lots, maybe a Pond and Fountain, etc.

This has all happened because too many association members did not bother to Vote or get involved in the least little bit over the past few years.

Yes, the 40+ of us whom bothered to take time out of our busy schedules to show up physically make up a small minority of the total membership, BUT, we were an overwhelming MAJORITY that showed up at the ANNAUL MEETING.

Please, get the Facts and Vote for the 3-people whom will give you the best value for your Association Dues.

For those who may not be aware, Jonathan IS a part of Chaska. The roll of an association is to provide amenities over and above those provided by a city.