Richard, I appreciate your description of how the decision was made to stay with three board members. Reid Cain gave a vague description of a past action but it was not nearly as clear as yours. We are relative new members of the neighborhood. Before we moved in we received at least 3 copies of the governing documents and we read them thoroughly because we assumed that those were the rules everyone was complying with. We are strong supporters of having clear rules that are consistently followed. Early on we observed that the board was restricting membership to 3 members when the bylaws clearly required five. We raised the question as to whether a change had been made to the bylaws and, if so, why were we working off of an old set of bylaws. Our question was not a demand to increase the board to five or challenge the popularity of the current board. Whether one feels the board is loyal and hard working has nothing to do with what rules we should all be complying with. In the last board meeting, the board admitted that the bylaws had never been properly amended and that issue should be addressed. Since it is not likely that anyone could produce evidence that a proper vote to amend the bylaws was taken back in those early days, the only way to make the change now is to have a proper amendment voted on by the current neighborhood members.  Unfortunately the board has suggested they can declare a "mistake" in the original bylaws and they have the authority to change it. The requirement in the original bylaws to have five members is clearly not a "mistake". In summary, we have only two proper options in front of us: 1) Increase the board to 5 members to comply with the only applicable set of bylaws or 2) conduct a vote of the entire membership on a bylaws change to limit the board to three members.  Bruce Anderson

With the stated singular focus on the “rules” it must be amazing the community has thrived for 15 years. I built/bought in 2006 in the low 300k; I could likely sell in the low 500’s today. That didn’t happen in a community of rule breakers. This is not a popularity contest ... i and others spoke about respect of the current BOD, specifically true tenured respect. Personally, I grew up in difficult circumstances .... a father only by name, and dysfunction by others and myself. Thank God I had a willingness to listen learn and change ... often lessons came from complete strangers. One lesson that I will always be grateful for is this: True Respect is always Earned and never forced. I say this with the utmost respect for those that currently serve or may serve in the future. Be well and give your loved ones a hug today ... we’ve lost two family members due to the cooties bug in the last month...life is short and most certainly to be enjoyed! Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 20, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Bruce/Beth Anderson via Discussion <discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com> wrote: > > Richard, I appreciate your description of how the decision was made to stay with three board members. Reid Cain gave a vague description of a past action but it was not nearly as clear as yours. > > We are relative new members of the neighborhood. Before we moved in we received at least 3 copies of the governing documents and we read them thoroughly because we assumed that those were the rules everyone was complying with. We are strong supporters of having clear rules that are consistently followed. > > Early on we observed that the board was restricting membership to 3 members when the bylaws clearly required five. We raised the question as to whether a change had been made to the bylaws and, if so, why were we working off of an old set of bylaws. Our question was not a demand to increase the board to five or challenge the popularity of the current board. Whether one feels the board is loyal and hard working has nothing to do with what rules we should all be complying with. > > In the last board meeting, the board admitted that the bylaws had never been properly amended and that issue should be addressed. Since it is not likely that anyone could produce evidence that a proper vote to amend the bylaws was taken back in those early days, the only way to make the change now is to have a proper amendment voted on by the current neighborhood members. Unfortunately the board has suggested they can declare a "mistake" in the original bylaws and they have the authority to change it. The requirement in the original bylaws to have five members is clearly not a "mistake". > > In summary, we have only two proper options in front of us: 1) Increase the board to 5 members to comply with the only applicable set of bylaws or 2) conduct a vote of the entire membership on a bylaws change to limit the board to three members. > > > Bruce Anderson > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list -- discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com > To unsubscribe send an email to discussion-leave@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com > > To manage your subscription to this list, or to unsubscribe, please visit:

So here is my take on the last couple of days. First, if someone questions on how a decision is made on the board, that is his or her right. What I don't understand is why is there is a problem with having more than 3 board members? We live in a democracy but we also live in a country of laws. There is a reason why HOA's or any organizations have rules to follow. If a member of an organization has a question on the rules of a HOA, he or she has the right to voice his or her concerns. Not be attacked on a message broad. I have read his post and he has a valid point. He was not calling anyone on the board "rule breakers". He is not calling out the board for not doing a good job. He was just asking how the board got to a decision. So what is the problem? Why would the current board members not welcome more board members? I believe we should have more than 3 board members because new people are moving into this community and they need to have a voice too. But honestly, your voice is not going to be heard on a message board. You have to attend the meetings and get involved. I for one is guilty of that but that is going to change. The best thing to do is be present and involved. I understand that the board is a thankless job and I have seen Tom out fixing things and I want to thank him for that. I also feel the board should be paid too. Tom's probably gets all hours of the day and night phone calls from members about situations. He should be paid for that. I am a strong supporter of paying the board some kind of salary and get rid of the HOA management company. We can support ourselves. By the way, the main reason your home value is going up is because of supply and demand. Supply & Demand, inflation, and interest rate mainly controls house prices not the HOA. Now the HOA helps a little but not most of it. Plus school districts and location helps too. Furthermore, yes the HOA is not a fortune 500 company but the HOA has rules to follow. That is my two cents worth. And please quit point fingers at people that question the board. That is their right. We live in a democracy and people have a right to question their elected leaders. Again, I am for one to have more board members. Thanks Tom, Greg, and Reed for your service!! Darrell Boyd -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Kirkpatrick via Discussion <discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:43 PM To: Bruce/Beth Anderson <rbaswim@yahoo.com>; Limestone Ranch HOA discussion <discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com> Cc: Kevin Kirkpatrick <kevinkirk@yahoo.com> Subject: [Limestone Ranch Discussion]Re: LSR Amendment request With the stated singular focus on the “rules” it must be amazing the community has thrived for 15 years. I built/bought in 2006 in the low 300k; I could likely sell in the low 500’s today. That didn’t happen in a community of rule breakers. This is not a popularity contest ... i and others spoke about respect of the current BOD, specifically true tenured respect. Personally, I grew up in difficult circumstances .... a father only by name, and dysfunction by others and myself. Thank God I had a willingness to listen learn and change ... often lessons came from complete strangers. One lesson that I will always be grateful for is this: True Respect is always Earned and never forced. I say this with the utmost respect for those that currently serve or may serve in the future. Be well and give your loved ones a hug today ... we’ve lost two family members due to the cooties bug in the last month...life is short and most certainly to be enjoyed! Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 20, 2021, at 8:44 AM, Bruce/Beth Anderson via Discussion <discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com> wrote: > > Richard, I appreciate your description of how the decision was made to stay with three board members. Reid Cain gave a vague description of a past action but it was not nearly as clear as yours. > > We are relative new members of the neighborhood. Before we moved in we received at least 3 copies of the governing documents and we read them thoroughly because we assumed that those were the rules everyone was complying with. We are strong supporters of having clear rules that are consistently followed. > > Early on we observed that the board was restricting membership to 3 members when the bylaws clearly required five. We raised the question as to whether a change had been made to the bylaws and, if so, why were we working off of an old set of bylaws. Our question was not a demand to increase the board to five or challenge the popularity of the current board. Whether one feels the board is loyal and hard working has nothing to do with what rules we should all be complying with. > > In the last board meeting, the board admitted that the bylaws had never been properly amended and that issue should be addressed. Since it is not likely that anyone could produce evidence that a proper vote to amend the bylaws was taken back in those early days, the only way to make the change now is to have a proper amendment voted on by the current neighborhood members. Unfortunately the board has suggested they can declare a "mistake" in the original bylaws and they have the authority to change it. The requirement in the original bylaws to have five members is clearly not a "mistake". > > In summary, we have only two proper options in front of us: 1) Increase the board to 5 members to comply with the only applicable set of bylaws or 2) conduct a vote of the entire membership on a bylaws change to limit the board to three members. > > > Bruce Anderson > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list -- discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com > To unsubscribe send an email to discussion-leave@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com > > To manage your subscription to this list, or to unsubscribe, please visit: _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list -- discussion@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com To unsubscribe send an email to discussion-leave@lists.limestoneranchhoa.com To manage your subscription to this list, or to unsubscribe, please visit: