PET
RECOMMENDATION
From: John D Roth <jroth4@comcast.net> Date:
Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:02:24 -0500
To:
"Frank
J. Vargish" <FJV@bbt-law.com>, Joe McCarthy <llionel55@verizon.net>,
AARON COHEN
<grayceaaron@msn.com>, Bill Delmar <DelmarCondo@aol.com>,
Steve Oksala <ni3p@comcast.net>, Ron
Cunningham <rgcunningham@comcast.net>
It's now been over three weeks since the October
27, 2009 posting of a recommendation to
address the dog problem at 9400 and bring the operation of the
condominium into
compliance with the condominium by-laws. Aside from a quick
exchange with Steve Oksala
and a similar encounter with Grayce Cohen, I've received no
response from the BOD. Can I
reasonably expect to hear a summary of the BOD's discussion of
this recommendation at the November 21, 2009 BOD meeting?
Will it be necessary for me to wait until the minutes of the
November meeting are approved in January, 2010 to learn the
BOD's decision?
JR
November 28, 2009 Historical Info From Bob
Snyder
Subject: Small dogs
From: Resjes2001@aol.com
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009
11:16:54 EST
BOD- if you are still discussing "small dogs" ,
here is a piece of info for you that I located:
9400 Condominium Newsletter dated April 29, 1981 states--" We
are still experiencing problems with dogs. Our Bylaws permit
owners to have small pets in the building. Renters or guests of
owners are not permitted to have
dogs in the building. It becomes embarrassing for management as
well as the renters or guests when we enforce this regulation.
Your Board has ruled that a small animal is one that can be
easily carried in a person's
arms. This does not mean Great Danes, Dalmations, German
Shepherds, etc. Large animals do not belong in high rise
apartment buildings. Be considerate of your fellow owners and
your animals and leave large dogs at home."
It is not a new problem and the Board at that
time apparently took a position. Don't know if it was enforced.
Grayce- do you remember? You may have been on the Board at that
time.
Bob Snyder
December 2, 2009 Steve Thanks
Committee For Their Input
Subject:
Pet
Committee
From: ni3p@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 2
Dec 2009 19:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
To: "Berul,
Annette" <lberul@yahoo.com>, "Polizzi, Luann" <Lulup722@aol.com>,
"Segermark, Judi"
<judiseg@hotmail.com>, "Chappell, Margot" <parkdreams@lycos.com>,
"Roth, John D"
On behalf of the 9400 Condominium Board of
Directors, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you
put in as part of the Board's pet committee. As you know, there
was no consensus on any recommendation from the committee; we
did receive a set of recommendations from John Roth (which I
believe you have all seen), but as he noted these were his
personal recommendations and not the results of any committee
deliberations.
The board discussed the issues at its November
meeting. It determined that it would do the following;
1. Convey the relevant information to our
attorney for an opinion on what the bylaws do and do not require
us to do or not do.
2. Within the constraints of his opinion, the
board will review a variety of sources of information and
determine what clarifications or changes are needed to our
current house rules and procedures to best meet the needs of the
9400 building. Those sources will include at least
a. All of the correspondence provided by you as
part of the committee process;
b. Previous decisions by the Board as documented
in minutes and other communications;
c. Any other information that comes to light.
The results of that effort will be made
available to the ownership. While we cannot predict the time
this will take, I would hope we can do it expeditiously.
Again, thanks for making your valuable time
available for the best interests of the 9400 condominium.
Regards,
Steve Oksala
December 2, 2009 - Roth
Requests Clarification
Subject:
Re:
Pet Committee
From: John D
Roth <jroth4@comcast.net>
Date: Wed,
02 Dec 2009 22:50:33 -0500
To:
ni3p@comcast.net
Steve - Thank you for your note. Your answers to
a few questions will help me understand what he BOD will be
doing next.
Re item #1 -
Does the "relevant information" to be conveyed to the attorney
include the entire text of the website (including the expansion
of all links) or are any portions of the website to be
considered irrelevant?
Re item #2a -
Does "All of the correspondence provided by you as part of the
committee process" include the cover letter to the BOD and my
recommendation?
General #1 -
Will the letter to our attorney, outlining our questions, be
made available to the owners ( Note that this is NOT a request
to review the letter prior to sending it to the attorney)?
General #2 -
Will the attorney's complete written response be made available
to owners?
Thank you for your timely response.
JR
December 7, 2009 - Steve
Clarifies
Subject:
Re:
Pet Committee
From: ni3p@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009
15:06:47 +0000 (UTC)
To: John D Roth <jroth4@comcast.net>
Item #1. We do not plan on sending the attorney
the full correspondence. His job is to determine how the bylaws
constrain us, and we will provide him with input to do this and
still minimize any legal expense.
Item #2a. Yes.
General #1. No.
General #2. I expect that the Board will produce
a document that will cover all aspects of this, including what
constraints were identified. We would not expect to routinely
provide this (or any other detailed communications that are part
of board activities) to all the owners.
Steve Oksala
To: Steve Oksala
Subject: Pet Committee
Date: January 3,
2010
Thank you for your
note, Steve.
FYI, I've duplicated the Pet Committee website and placed it on
the internet at
http://www.9400.org This will give the information a
permanent home and make it more easily accessible for anyone
needing the information in the future.
re: Previous decisions by the Board as documented in minutes
and other communications - I've located some information from
2005 BOD minutes that may be helpful to you:
[Becker,
Cunningham, Gaul, Hunt, Snyder, Vargish, K. Delmar (absent)]
Owners at
the meeting asked the Board to address the issue of big dogs in
the building. The bylaws state that dogs must be small and
only owners are allowed to bring dogs into the building. There
is at least one person who is not an owner who is bringing in a
large black dog. The dog is not well managed and has frightened
several owners. Bob Snyder stated that owners need to register
their dogs and they must have tags. Jim Gaul suggested that the
guard check for tags on all dogs. Sharon Hunt will put an
article in the newsletter stating the by-laws requirements about
the ownership and size of dogs.
From the July 16, 2005 BOD
Meeting Minutes
[Becker, Cunningham, Gaul, Hunt, Snyder, Vargish, K. Delmar]
Bob
Snyder requested a revision made to the minutes regarding dogs.
The bylaws do not place a weight limit (previously stated as 30
lbs or less) on owner’s dogs. Minutes should be changed to read
“…small dogs are permitted…” Frank Vargish moved that the
minutes be approved as amended; Andy Becker seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimous for approval.
Additional Comments – Not
Included in Any Minutes:
No mention of
this issue in September meeting minutes.
Apparently it died during the August recess.
I've gathered from
your earlier note that the BOD would prefer NOT to disclose to
interested owners the specifics of the BOD's questions to our
attorney or the details of the attorney's response. I don't
understand the need for this limitation and I'm wondering...
A) If I were to volunteer to take the open Andy Becker position,
would I be allowed to see the secret stuff?
B) Would the BOD attempt to disallow my participation in any
votes related to the pet problem?
C) Wouldn't it just be easier for everyone involved to just make
the communications between the BOD and the attorney available to
any interested owner?
JR
January 20, 2010 - BOD Decision - No Changes Unless We
Make Some Changes?
FROM:
Delmarcondo@aol.com
SUBJECT: Board Decision On Dogs at the 9400 Building
DATE:
January 20, 2010
Dear members of the 9400 Pet Committee,
After many lengthy discussions on the dog
issue and the recommendations of the Pet Committee, and
after having our attorney review the issue, the Board has
decided to adopt the following policy:
The Board of Directors
plan to continue the long-standing tradition of allowing
dogs in the building, regardless of size, as long as they
meet with our rules.We note that at the
current time our rules are:
1.All dogs
must belong to the owner, and not to renters, friends, or
relatives.(This does not apply to
designated service dogs, such as seeing eye dogs).
2.All dogs
must be licensed through the Condominium Office, and must
wear the appropriate tag at all times.
3.All dogs
must be on a leash whenever they are outside the owner’s
unit.
4.Dogs which
exhibit inappropriate behavior will have their license
revoked.
It
is possible that at some point in the future, consideration
will be given to limiting the size of dogs, relaxation of
the strict owner requirement, or other rule changes.It is also possible that a legal interpretation may
change this position.It is the intent
of the Board that if such changes are made, they will not
apply to dogs which were acceptable prior to the
implementation of the changes.
We thank you for taking the time to volunteer
for this committee.
Bill Delmar
President
9400 Board of Directors
What Does The Response Mean?
FROM:
JOHN ROTH SUBJECT:
Re: Board Decision On Dogs at the 9400 Building
DATE: January 27, 2010
Bill - I don't understand.
It is possible that at some point in
the future, consideration will be given to limiting the size of
dogs, relaxation of the strict owner requirement, or other rule
changes. It is also possible that a legal interpretation may
change this position. It is the intent of the Board that if
such changes are made, they will not apply to dogs which were
acceptable prior to the implementation of the changes.
If our attorney has already issued his opinion, what is the
meaning of the statement above and what will cause us to get
(another?) legal opinion.
Have we received a real legal opinion - on the firm's letterhead
and signed by our attorney - or have we merely a conversation
with our attorney?
Did our attorney agree with Margot's interpretation of her
discussion with her attorney? Margo's interpretation of her
discussion with her attorney is clearly not a legal opinion.
It seems as if your letter to the Pet
Committee members says, in essence, "we're not going to do
anything until we do something."
From your other letter
-
Please keep in
mind, though the bylaws may have legal significance in court
they do not in other jurisdictions.
What in the world do you mean by this? The only guess I can
make is that you're saying that the by-laws are enforceable
only by going to court - not by the BOD. Is that what it's
going to take? And can we afford to ignore the "Pet
Committee" recommendation and risk a serious dog bite
problem after having been made aware of the potential
consequences?
It seems to me that this BOD may be merely passing the
problem to the next BOD rather than taking action.
JR
Bill Simplifies It For Everyone
FROM: BILL
DELMAR
SUBJECT: Re: Board Decision On Dogs at the 9400
Building
DATE: January 27, 2010
John,
I'm not going to continue to debate
this issue. I'll try to simplify it for you. The
Board is basically stating that if in the future
this or any other Board has the right to change this
policy. Also, the Board may in the future get a
legal interpretation from another attorney which
differs from the opinion we now have so we have
reserved the right to change the policy.
Again you have taken a statement that
was made out of context. The statement you are
referring to is from our attorney and basically
means that we can not call the police or animal
control and say please remove a dog from our
building because it is in violation of our bylaws.
The bylaws do not state what consequences should be
imposed on an owner that fails to comply with a
house rule.
In the State of Maryland, as in all
49 other states, a dog's owner is legally
responsible for their dog and their dog's actions at
all times. This means that if a dog bites someone
the dog owner is responsible, not a condo
association, Board of Directors or any other group
or agency.
The Board has done everything that
you have requested. We have reviewed and
discussed The Pet Committee recommendations, we have
contacted our insurance carrier and our attorney
regarding your issues. The Board then made a
decision based on all the aforementioned
information. I am sorry that you may disagree with
the Board's decision.
Bill Delmar
President
9400 Board of Directors
One important question remains
unanswered:Did our attorney
find that our by-laws allow owners to bring ONLY small
dogs to the building? If so, are we shopping for
another legal opinion?
Subject:
DOGS AT 9400
From: John D. Roth <jroth4@comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010
11:01:37 -0400
To: Bill
Delmar, Frank Vargish, Ron Cunningham, Grayce Cohen, Joe
McCarthy, Steve Oksala
I've been
waiting patiently for a copy of the the minutes of the
January, 2010 9400 BOD meeting. I was hoping to see an
explanation as to how the BOD can appropriately issue a
policy that is in conflict with the by-laws. The
minutes arrived and, as expected, there was no such
explanation. The minutes indicate that our attorney
confirmed what we all knew to be true - that the
by-laws prohibit other than small dogs on the 9400
premises. Our attorney has proposed three potential
solutions. The BOD apparently has chosen to disregard
both the attorney's opinion and the attorney's
suggestions.
1) Our attorney suggests that one option is to strictly
enforce the by-laws. To date, the BOD has given no
notice to owners of any intention to enforce the
by-laws.
2) Our attorney suggests that we can change the
by-laws. To date, the BOD has given no notice to owners
of a proposal to change the by-laws.
3) Our attorney suggests that we may be able to continue
our current policy of allowing all dogs as long as no
problems arise. But a problem has already arisen and
been reported.
Instead of following the advice of our attorney, the BOD
has issued a "new" policy concerning dogs. In effect,
this "new" policy says that the BOD recognizes that the
by-laws prohibit other than small dogs, but the BOD
intends to ignore the by-laws - at least for an
undefined period of time.
Section 4.4 of the bylaws (Other Duties) outlines some
of the duties of the Board of Directors. Section 4.4
(d) indicates that the Board of Directors shall be
responsible for...the promulgation and enforcement
of such rules and regulations and such restrictions
on or requirements as may be deemed proper respecting
the use, occupancy and maintenance of the Project and
the use of the general and limited common elements as
are necessary to prevent unreasonable interference with
the use and occupancy of the Condominium and of the
general and limited common elements by owners, all of
which shall be consistent with law and the provisions of
these By-laws...
Since the "new" policy conflicts with the by-laws, it
appears that the members of the Board are operating
outside the scope of their authority in issuing this
"new" policy and that the "new" policy is void.
I respectfully request that the BOD immediately rescind
this inappropriate "new" policy and, without delay,
begin to implement one or more of the suggestions
proposed by our attorney. Willful disregard of the
by-laws reflects poorly on our BOD and our building.
For what it's worth, I'll have no more to say concerning
this subject unless the issue is raised by someone
else. I've spent nearly a year trying to influence our
BOD to act responsibly on this issue. As currently
constituted, there appears to be no interest on the part
of the BOD, as a whole, to do so. The BOD has done
several things well. Dealing with this issue certainly
isn't one of them.
JR
June 6, 2010 Questions to BOD
re: Annual Meeting Statements by BOD Members
SUBJECT: Questions From 2010
Annual Meeting
FROM: John D. Roth
DATE: June 6, 2010
TO: Bill Delmar, Steve Oksala, Ron Cunningham, Joe
McCarthy, Ron Cunningham, Grayce Cohen
Discussion by the BOD at the annual
meeting raises the following questions:
1) The "new" dog policy specifies that: "Dogs which
exhibit inappropriate behavior will have their license
revoked." Nancy's list of dog owners, given to the Pet
Committee, shows that the
dog in unit
504 has been issued a 9400 dog tag. Has this license
been revoked for inappropriate behavior? If not, do you
intend to revoke this license? Do you intend to revoke
the licenses of all dogs that are not the property of
owners?
2) At the annual meeting, Bill Delmar bemoaned the fact
that the BOD is obligated to follow the recommendations
of our attorney. The minutes of the January 16, 2010
BOD meeting state that "Mr.
Almand said that we need to (1) enforce the bylaws
strictly; (2) change the bylaws; or (3) continue our
current policy of allowing dogs as long as no
problems arise. His opinion was that the bylaws do
prohibit other than "small" dogs, but that this
prohibition applies only to owners."
Since a
problem has already arisen, it would then appear
that the BOD must either strictly
enforce the by-laws of change the by-laws.
Have I misinterpreted, or is the BOD planning on
taking some action re: the by-laws?
3) At the annual meeting, someone on the BOD commented
that a restriction on dogs would negatively affect the
marketability of the units in our building. Have the
members of the BOD considered the fact idea that there
would also be an offsetting positive effect because
many potential buyers people would prefer that large
dogs be prohibited?
Sorry for the delay. Please see
answers below each of your questions.
Steve Oksala
----- Original Message -----
From: "John D Roth" <jroth4@comcast.net>
To: "Bill Delmar" <DelmarCondo@aol.com>, "Steve Oksala"
<ni3p@comcast.net>, "Ron Cunningham" <rgcunningham@comcast.net>,
"Joe McCarthy" <llionel55@verizon.net>, "AARON COHEN" <grayceaaron@msn.com>,
"Frank J. Vargish" <FJV@bbt-law.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2010 2:25:25 PM
Subject: Questions From 2010 Annual Meeting
Discussion by the BOD at the annual
meeting raises the following questions:
1) The "new" dog policy specifies that: "Dogs which
exhibit inappropriate behavior will have their license
revoked." Nancy's list of dog owners, given to the Pet
Committee, shows that the
dog in unit
504 has been issued a 9400 dog tag. Has this license
been revoked for inappropriate behavior? If not, do you
intend to revoke this license? Do you intend to revoke
the licenses of all dogs that are not the property of
owners?
**It was determined that the dog in question did not
belong to an owner. Should the dog return, the tag
would be revoked for that reason.
2) At the annual meeting, Bill Delmar bemoaned the fact
that the BOD is obligated to follow the recommendations
of our attorney. The minutes of the January 16, 2010
BOD meeting state that "Mr.
Almand said that we need to (1) enforce the bylaws
strictly; (2) change the bylaws; or (3) continue our
current policy of allowing dogs as long as no
problems arise. His opinion was that the bylaws do
prohibit other than "small" dogs, but that this
prohibition applies only to owners."
Since a
problem has already arisen, it would then appear
that the BOD must either strictly
enforce the by-laws of change the by-laws.
Have I misinterpreted, or is the BOD planning on
taking some action re: the by-laws?
** As noted above,
the specific issue in question has been resolved. The
Board currently has no plans to take any action to
change the bylaws.
3) At the annual meeting, someone on the BOD commented
that a restriction on dogs would negatively affect the
marketability of the units in our building. Have the
members of the BOD considered the fact idea that there
would also be an offsetting positive effect because
many potential buyers people would prefer that large
dogs be prohibited?
** The Board
considered this matter, and determined that any claims
of impact on marketability with regard to allowing or
not allowing pets would be highly speculative. The
Board, not having any access to non-anecdotal
information on this subject, does not intend to consider
the marketability issue further.
