Law Suit Filed Against the Point Aquarius POA

An online review of the 410th Judicial Court reveals that a lawsuit has been filed against the Point Aquarius POA. None of this should surprise residents after the laughable election the inner circle of the board pulled on May 22, 2006. They had originally appointed a director who was not a property owner in Point Aquarius as is required by the by-laws. Once they were challenged on that illegality, they tried to cover it up with a highly questionable “Durable Power of Attorney.” The judge will hold a hearing on June 6th according to the online docket.

This certainly appears to be an open and shut case. Joe Ashton was not a property owner at the time the candidates should have been vetted for the election. To present a document with an effective date of May 16, 2006 does not make him a property owner at the time of the election in April. In fact, the document itself may not have jurisdiction to decide ownership, but the judge will decide that.

It is interesting to note that whoever was appointed to determine eligibility to run in a POA election apparently didn’t do the job thoroughly. Was it the Secretary who failed to check on the ownership question? Or, did the inner circle just try to sneak it through? This time, we may find out because many are likely to have to testify under oath.

The sad part of this attempt at power control in Point Aquarius is that the association is probably going to have to pay for the legal fees to undo everything done by the illegal director along with every item that was carried by way of his vote.

Concerned Residents

Board Sinks to a New Low

Residents of Point Aquarius beware! In the opinion of many residents, the inner circle on the board is attempting to pull off a very questionable if not illegal election of officers.

They held a meeting May 22, 2006 to elect Roland Morgan as president, Al Morin as vice president, Joan O’hara as secretary and George Saltsman as treasurer. The votes for each person were 5 to 4 with Joe Ashton being the 5th affirmative vote besides those named.

From the viewpoint of residents who favor fairness and integrity in our POA, there are several reasons why this vote should never have been allowed. Consider the following:

1. Joe Ashton was not a property owner during the period of time all candidates should have been verified as eligible to run in the election. The property where he lives is in his wife’s name, Tianna Lee Ashton. He presented a lengthy 4 page “Durable Power Of Attorney” at the May 22, 2006 meeting as proof that he was eligible to represent her. However, in his own document, section 13 says, “The rights, powers and authority of my agent shall commence and be in full force and effect on the date of execution of this instrument, and such rights, powers and authority shall remain in full force and effect thereafter until my death.” The date of execution is May 16, 2006, which means the powers mentioned in the document did not start until that date. The qualification to run and the election itself were held prior to his gaining legal status to represent his wife. Therefore he was not eligible to participate in the election and should have been removed as a director immediately.

2. Article V Section 1 of the By-laws says that “All nominees shall be Members in good standing as defined an Article II Section 8 which says they must be property owners in good standing. Since Joe Ashton was not a property owner and did not have an enforceable power of attorney for his wife until May 16, 2006, he should have been removed from office and not allowed to vote in the hastily called meeting of May 22, 2006.

3. Article VI Section 1 of the By-laws says, “The first meeting of the newly elected board will be an Organizational Meeting.” Even if Joe Ashton’s eligibility is ignored, the Organizational Meeting should not have been held because the election was not completed. The tie for the last board seat still needs to be resolved before anyone can refer to it as a newly elected board. Perhaps the composition of the board should be described as “partially elected” with two new positions finalized and one seat undecided. Does the City of Conroe hold meetings to elect chairmanships before run-off elections are decided? No one except Point Aquarius does that kind of stuff.

All this posturing for control has increased suspicions among residents to an even greater level than before. The thirst for power by the inner circle in Point Aquarius seems unquenchable. Why are they willing to stoop to spurious acts of election irregularities to keep control? It makes honest people wonder if there is a secret benefit in these unpaid positions or if it is just lust for power.

Knowledge of their recent anti-resident actions involving the by-laws, the clubhouse and the assessment increase indicate only a drive to control the community not to improve it. The election brouhaha breaks down to a simple matter of enforcing the rules. If Joe Ashton is not a listed property owner in Point Aquarius at the time the secretary should have been verifying all candidates, then he is not eligible to be a director.

It appears a law suit is the only way to stop this abuse of power by a few in our community. Let a judge hear the evidence and make a decision on what is right or wrong. Many questionable decisions can be aired including the legal advice of the association attorneys and whether the inner circle on the board actually followed it.

Some residents have already promised contributions to cover the cost. Others who would like to join in can just add a comment to the blog and you will be contacted later once the costs of filing are determined. Action is needed to get control of our community back.


A Group of Concerned Residents