The former management company's contract was renewed at the board meeting on 2/26/20. At that meeting the former management company suggested changing parking rules would be required in order to change parking enforcement. The board asked to put rules related to parking in the next notice. A parking patrol was discussed but was not in the budget at the time. Then at some point they received 30 day notice, terminating their management contract.
There is no record of any board meeting where the former company was fired, where one might find some sort of justification or cause for termination of the recently renewed contract. It was unexpected. If the former management company was not expecting the termination of their contract, was the decision not made at a board meeting? Because that would be illegal...
(a) The board shall not take action on any item of business outside of a board meeting.
Did someone take a signed contract to renew with the former managing company, and give it to a new one? Or is the new management company employed without a contract? If there is a contract, can we see it? Yup, Civ. Code §5200 (a) (4) includes "Executed contracts not otherwise privileged under law. produced."
The board meeting minutes, which are required to be made available to members for inspection, don't exist for meetings after 2/26/20. That is the last recorded meeting... when the former management company's contract was renewed.
The next meeting was scheduled for 5/27/20, which wound up being the night following George Floyd's death. There is no record of that meeting, if it took place, or any meeting since. But don't take my word for it, ask to inspect the board meeting minutes yourself.
In the event of missing minutes ones must be drafted and that draft is agreed upon by the board, then the secretary signs the draft, making them an official permanent record.
The Open Meeting Act protects members access to information and ensures due process for condominiums / shared interest developments. Are there ulterior motives at play? Are there any conflicts of interest when it comes to parking enforcement, or terminating managers?
Is it worth considering the fate of the front parking lot? Does the phased development plan match the existing improvements? Nothing changed right, we can still park there? There has been no grant of exclusive use since we paid to pave it as common area parking circa 2012? Are we paying more just to have someone threaten to tow us?
What if we just keep the existing improvement we paid for? Then we have fewer people driving around looking for parking and the final units would be primo, especially with the extra parking. Comps everyone?