A video of the meeting is not yet available but when one is we will add a link here. Our comments below only cover certain items we think are noteworthy.
We don’t recall if it was ever formally explained at a prior Board meeting, but the Aviva Liasson (Jerry Lazar, who is an MCA resident and TMCC member) is now a Board member, but does not vote on any matters. This is likely the result of Articles of Incorporation, Article VIII, paragraph 5(b) which states that if any owner’s property value is more than 5% of the Meadows OR Highlands, they may have a representative on the Board. It is odd to us that the standard is 5% of Meadows OR Highlands, rather than MCA as a whole. This dates back to at least the 1992 restated Articles of Incorporation (the MCA does not provide the original 1976 Articles of Incorporation on its website). Aviva’s property value is less than 5% of the whole of the MCA, so having their own Board member seems like more influence than they should have. The Board has the power to amend this if it chose to.
An MCA Homeowner attempted to make a point of order, that MCA Homeowner comments should be a part of the discussion of the agenda items, not after the Board has discussed and decided on the agenda items. The MCA Homeowner seemed to provide support on their mobile phone to the Board liaison, but the President chose to proceed with the meeting in their normal fashion. Will be very interesting if MCA Homeowners can contribute to the discussion PRIOR to Board decisions, rather than only afterwards. We’d be happy to publish the details if anyone could send them to us at ForTheMeadows@SarasotaMeadows.com
During his presentation of the proposed MCA budget for 2025-2026, the Treasurer noted that the MCA will take over responsibility for operating the fitness center and pool (both owned by MCA) from TMCC. The plan is to put MCA Homeowners on equal footing with TMCC members when it comes to use of the facilities and related fitness classes. The stated estimated cost of operating these facilities was stated at $223,000. It was noted that this will require a change in the lease and details have yet to be worked out. Since 2020, MCA has been paying TMCC for access to these facilities, as TMCC was paying the operating costs. Now that MCA is paying the operating costs, it would be appropriate for TMCC to pay MCA for access for their non-resident members (TMCC members who are MCA residents would already have paid access as residents). We understand that there are about 400 non-resident TMCC members, 600 resident TMCC members, and 1,600 Renaissance Access cardholders. On this basis TMCC should be covering at least 15% of the operating costs (400 / (400 + 600 + 1600) = 15%) and should contribute a proportional amount of the capital costs as well.
Board member Chris Perone asked that management look into a policy to allow MCA homeowners to rent rooms in the MCLWF. Management will look into the pros/cons/challenges and propose a policy in this area.
Board member Chris Perone made a motion for the Board to commit to a Town Hall meeting in January. Date and Time to be determined. The motion passed unanimously. This is an important step towards more transparency and genuine constructive dialogue.
Board member Mark Pienkos made a motion for the Board to create a Strategic Planning Committee to make recommendations to the MCA Board as to the future of TMCC following hurricane damage. The committee would meet in open session and report their recommendations to the entire community. It would not have any decision-making power, only make recommendations to the MCA Board. It was proposed to be comprised of 3 MCA Board members (who are not TMCC members), 3 TMCC Board members, and 3 members of the MCA community (who are not TMCC members).
After some discussion, Board member Ned Boston made a motion to amend the above motion to remove the stipulation that 6 committee members not be TMCC members. This amendment was passed unanimously. After more discussion the amended motion was passed by a majority (7 For, 2 Against).
Stepping back, it seemed like there was an expectation that the committee would be assessing the future of the CLUBHOUSE (there were references to architect’s plans). But the motion was regarding the future of TMCC. “The future of TMCC” is clearly outside the responsibility of the MCA Board who are responsible for the MCA’s sports and dining complex assets, but don’t make decisions on TMCC (who are the current lessors of those assets). If the expectation is that the committee will consider the future of MCA’s sports and dining complex assets, we are supportive of that. The Board needs to clarify the mandate of the committee. As the person who made the motion, Mark Pienkos is likely the best person to do so.
The issue of whether MCA Board members who are TMCC members have a conflict of interest on TMCC related matters continues to be a point of contention. Comments from MCA President and VP on the legal opinion they’ve received seem to address whether TMCC member involvement meets the statutory standard of CRIMINAL conflict of interest. The MCA Board needs to have conflict of interest policy with a standard much lower than criminal conflict of interest. There will be a future blog post on this. If anyone wanted to make a Record Inspection request to obtain a copy of the opinion, we’d be pleased to receive a copy of it at ForTheMeadows@SarasotaMeadows.com
Please share this with your friends and neighbors.
Home | Sarasota Meadows Blog 
Leave a reply to neztul Cancel reply