Last night I attended the meeting where four candidates for the PLCA Board presented themselves and their ideas and qualifications for being elected to the 2 positions open on the PLCA governing Board. The candidates quickly divided themselves into two groups and here is my impression of the two groups.

Marvin Hancock and Peter Kane see our Association as having an executive branch (an elected Board of Directors) and a congress (home owners) represented by elected individuals to represent their individual neighborhood homeowners and advise the Board of home owners concerns on all policies and procedures of the Association promulgated by the Board. They spoke about retaining a Unit Owners Committee (UOC or renamed) to advise the Board in their decision making process and would govern openly with the UOC assisting the Board in making decisions that were in the best interest of all the property owners who are members of the Association. They recognized that the Association is governed by legal documents and the Florida statute that governs Florida Home Owners Associations.

Jet Tipton and Shirley Withrington see the Association more like a corporation where the Board tells the employees what the policies and procedures are that should be carried out. They ignore or purposely overlook the fact that the PLCA is not a corporation and we are not employees but the members of the PLC homeowners association and that they have a fiduciary duty to the homeowners, which they seem to have over looked. Shirley spoke negatively about the UOC and saw no need for a UOC. If the Board needs any input they would obtain it as they see fit. That position disturbed me. They saw no need to change any management or PLCA Attorney as the fact that have been working for 15 years for the PLCA is enough for them. To suggest or request to have an independent management consulting firm audit our Association and our attorney would probably upset them greatly as self-evaluations have been considered sufficient in the past. Shirley did not answer some questions because she had no knowledge of the situation, in defense she said she would first get the facts and then come to a decision that was not prejudiced. I am not sure what she meant by prejudiced but it was clear to me, from the negative way she described the UOC as not doing a good job informing the residents what the Board was doing, that she saw the UOC as a one way street from the Board to the residents and not a path for the property owners to convey their input to the Board. A serious short coming.

So there you have my opinion that Hancock and Kane were well qualified for the positions and sincere in their desire to do what is best for all the residents of Pelican Landing and not what “they” think is best for Pelican Landing. Therefore, they would be the best additions to the Board and that the other candidates might just do us more harm than good.

Feel free to pass this on if you agree.
Ray Eifler, Heron Point