Editorial — Fiduciary Duty in the Land of the Lotus Eaters

or….what does it take to wake up the PMC Board?

By Patric Hedlund, Editor TME [**See note below]

In the ancient Greek tale of The Odyssey there is a race of people living on an island dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and flowers are the primary food of the island. It is a powerful narcotic, causing the people to sleep in peaceful apathy.

Here is a sample of the PR fluff sent in an E-Blast newsletter from the Pine Mountain Club Property Owners Association to its members on Tuesday, April 5: “It’s Spring!!!! Weather has been beautiful this past week. Flowers are blooming, trees are getting their leaves back….” This “Land of the Lotus Eaters” prose offers its readers not even a hint about the Wednesday, April 6 ‘stealth meeting’ planned for the next day by the board to pass the 2016-2017 budget and raise the members’ assessments.

—————————————–
Directors’ Oath of Office
As a director of the Pine Mountain Club Property
Owners’ Association, I, [insert name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I shall perform my duties with diligence.
In so doing, I promise to act solely in the best interest of
the association, obeying all laws and enforcing the governing documents.
I shall not act beyond the scope of my authority, nor disseminate false or misleading statements about the
association or its members, nor disseminate confidential
information relating to the association.
—————————————–

The single most important fiduciary duty to the PMCPOA membership was breached by its board on April 6, when they voted to ignore the bylaws that each director had sworn to uphold and defend.

It was an illegal meeting, conducted illegally, without proper notification to members, ignoring the members’ rights to be fully informed before a new budget and new assessments are adopted.

Board chair John Dilibert wrote to former board chair and director Jack Throckmorton on Monday, April 11, 2016 acknowledging that he knows the board had acted in violation of PMCPOA Bylaw 10.03.

That bylaw says members shall be sent full financial information for the preceding year along with the proposed new budget before the board votes on May 21 to adopt the new budget. Dilibert said the bylaw is too hard to change and that it conflicts with current state law. But it doesn’t. Does the board’s action set a precedent that any member can invoke when they wish to ignore a bylaw?

How could this have happened?

**NOTE: Since this was written and published, it appears that a significant effort has been made by the board and the PMC Planning Committee to reinforce the need to consult with members as an important part of the budgeting process. We will be publishing a report about that in an upcoming issue of The Mountain Enterprise.

This is part of the April 22, 2016 online edition of The Mountain Enterprise.

Have an opinion on this matter? We'd like to hear from you.