Glen Kulik, counsel for the Board, sent the following letter dated July 11, 2007 and received in the mail on July 13, 2006.  We wonder of this will effect the voting that is due to end tomorrow, on the 14th.  More later but first the letter:

 

 

We don't want to disagree with a lawyer, but, for the moment, consider the correspondence to Elizabeth Thorp on June 23, 2006 that we never received a response to.....

 

Dear Elizabeth,   I would appreciate it if you would pass this communication on to the Board Members .  I have had the opportunity to peruse the proposed new CCR and restatement of the BYLAWS.  It appears that the presentation is much more substantive than I had anticipated when the effort was originally proposed of redacting the developer related verbiage. That activity would have been a simple effort to have adopted under the applicable State Laws. This is far more complicated a process.   The presentation format does not provide the opportunity for a comparison of redacted material and the inclusion of the new verbiage.  To do a diligent review of the proposal it will take some time in its' present format, the Summary of changes provided earlier not withstanding, particularly in view of a July 14 deadline for responses..        I noted in the Board minutes of February 16, 2006 a reference to the re-write proposal that an "informational meeting" would be held. This sounds like a good idea. With the deadline for response so close, perhaps you would want to extend it and call the informational meeting as indicated in the Board minutes.  This opportunity may allow for understanding the reasons behind the proposed changes.This was undoubtedly serious time consuming effort on the part of the authors and should deserve serious consideration. I would find it difficult to support or advise others to do the same without a better understanding of the rational for some of the proposed changes.    Let me know your plans as to an informational  meeting for this purpose.       Joe Halper