What can we do to keep the spirit of freedom fresh and alive today?
Happy Fourth of July!
Leave a reply
A “Fun”eral Conversation
There was a man who had been married for a very long time to a woman who had caused him a great deal of misery. He would often say, “After I’m dead, I’m going to come back and haunt you.”
Eventually the man died. At the funeral, as his coffin was being lowered into the grave, a friend whispered to the bereaved wife, “Aren’t you afraid he’ll come back to haunt you?” “Why no,” she replied, “I had him placed in the coffin face down. When he starts digging, he won’t be asking directions!”
Your Input Needed
We have added the 1988 Protective Covenants to this website, so you can compare the Proposed Covenants with the 1988 Protective Covenants that are currently in effect. Use the navigation menu at the top of this page to find both documents.
If you want to see any changes made to the Proposed Protective Covenants, or have any suggestions, there is still time to give us your input before we prepare the final draft for the upcoming vote on July 26. Leave your reply, or send an email to covenantowners@gmail.com. We really want your involvement!
Dealing with breaking the covenants
One thing in the proposed amended Protective Covenants that has brought the most response from the community is the $1000 maximum fine for violations (See section 9, paragraph D.) The maximum fine as it stands today, under the 1988 Protective Covenants, is $5000. We reduced it to $1000 because we thought that $5000 was excessive, but there are people in the community who think that $1000 is excessive.
It is essential that the community be able to protect itself from people who want to park junk cars around and create public nuisances that have a negative impact on the community.
To avoid excessive litigation and the added expense, it has been suggested that instead of using the courts, we would have a board of binding arbitration. If we have good people on the board, representing a cross membership of the community, it should work out OK. But even a board of arbitration can be partial, so we could possibly bring some issues down (probably the most expensive fines) to an appeal process involving the community. Now this is not a well-thought out process, but if implemented correctly, it could truly serve the needs of the community and maintain a high level of fairness.
For those of you who think the fines are excessive, please send us your comments and suggestions.
Vote Postponed to July 26
Though we have sufficient votes to pass the proposed new Protective Covenants, it is still very urgent that we have wide knowledge and participation in the initial process of writing the amended Protective Covenants. We are just now getting good responses in on our website, but the proposed amended Protective Covenants are still not ready to be voted on. That’s why we’re postponing the vote on the proposed covenants until July 26th . For those who haven’t done so yet, please leave your comments and suggestions on how to improve the proposed amended Protective Covenants. Thank you.
The Protective Covenants of the Village of St. Marie have always protected the unit owner’s right to vote. Likewise, the Uniform Common Interest Owners Bill of Rights Act, drafted in Big Sky, Montana, protects the unit owner’s right to vote. You can read the entire Bill of Rights by clicking here, but the parts quoted below are the most relevant to St. Marie:
UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT
drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES
at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-SEVENTEENTH YEAR
BIG SKY, MONTANA July 18 – July 25, 2008
COPYRIGHT 2008 by NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS
SECTION 8. POWERS AND DUTIES OF UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
(a) Regardless of the powers and duties of the association described in the declaration and bylaws, the association:
(6) may suspend any right or privilege of a unit owner that fails to pay an assessment, but may not:
(A) deny a unit owner or other occupant access to the owner’s unit;
(B) suspend a unit owner’s right to vote;
(C) prevent a unit owner from seeking election as a director or officer of the association; or
(D) withhold services provided to a unit or a unit owner by the association if the effect of withholding the service would be to endanger the health, safety, or property of any person; and
SECTION 9. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS AND OFFICERS.
(c) The executive board may not:
(2) amend the bylaws;
(5) determine the qualifications, powers, duties, or terms of office of executive board members.
SECTION 19. REMOVAL OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS.
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary, unit owners present in person, by proxy, or by absentee ballot at any meeting of the unit owners at which a quorum is present, may remove any member of the executive board and any officer elected by the unit owners, with or without cause, if the number of votes cast in favor of removal exceeds the number of votes cast in opposition to removal.
/blockquote>
St. Marie News 