Keep them Separate

[Resident]

I definitely feel the two associations need to remain as they are, separate. If the associations are combined even with a separate treasury, it would be too easy to co-mingle funds. Now, with the BWRA  needing money for additional funds to pay for the renovation, pool cover and  etc, what would keep the one association from funding renovation purchase a new cover without any thought it might not be their money to spend in that way. People moved into this neighborhood knowing they had a choice of supporting the pool and tennis courts. Now is not a time to say we all need to pitch in and help because it will increase the value of our property.

[loeblas]

i agree in keeping them separate.  comingling offers too many potential problems.

[Resident 2169]

Strongly feel that for liability and other issues, it is far better to keep the two separate.

[gafarmer@knology.net]

whether separate or together, what a decision again and again and again.  it makes not difference they should be together and each should support the other.  what about community, i guess no one knows what that truly means!!!

[Peter Keese]

One thing I think needs doing at our next Annual meeting is a revision of the by-laws. It appears to me that they have not been reviewed in some time. There are lots of typos which need correcting.

I'm thinking that we would do well to have a secretary and a treasurer as separate offices. (The current by-laws have one person designated to function in both capacities.

But I'm posting this here, because one major concern being addressed here is "separation" of the funds used for the pool and the funds used for the general neighborhood purposes.

I welcome discussion here: as I read the by-laws I see no mention of any "Recreation Association" - EXCEPT that there is one reference on page 8 to the "Finance Chairman of the Recreation Association". It is to be found in an addendum entitled "CONDITIONS FOR THE TRANSFER OF COMBINED MEMBERSHIPS" which was passed on May 23, 1978. I think I know what this means (see Article 11 - page 6), but I believe there are few, if any, active "Combined memberships". Some of you long timers, please correct me about this if I'm wrong.

My point is that the by-laws seem to me to be saying that there is one Association. See Item 5 of the Charter of the BWA.

It is my sense that orderly operation of the Assocation is best accomplished by having one treasurer who keeps all the financial records. A separate account each for pool operations and for general operations seems most desirable. But I think that the notion that there are two separate associations has been a fiction (even if a convenient one) for years.  I want to honor the desire of many in the neighborhood to have a clear accounting of how our monies are collected and expended. But I simply cannot agree with those who say that they don't want "their" dues to be used in support of the recreation area (including the pool).

There may be some who do not wish to support the neighborhood; in fact, there are several current residents of the neighborhood who choose not to pay annual dues, and who are not, therefore members of BWA. Membership is not mandatory (I leave it to others to decide whther that is a good thing or not).

BUT, my opinion is that the BWA is one unified Association which includes general operations and recreation area operations. Again, I refer you to item 5 of the Charter.

Comments?

[Peter Keese]

One other comment I meant to make yesterday:

The matter of "liability" is a real one. When I became President, I was dismayed to discover that our liability insurance was not what it should be - most especially that the Officers and Directors had no coverage.

We now have full coverage for the whole neighborhood  (and the D&O); so that I believe it is true that we are ALL adequately covered.

Which is to say that I believe that worry about inadequacy of coverage is no longer a reason to refrain from being a member of the BWA

[gafarmer@knology.net]

The restrictions have been gone over several times and not to long ago to correct you.  The restrictions were meant for the builder if you read them through.  Rick Barnes and Greg Farmer went over this and looked into unifying several times.  Big, huge deal and major undertaking.  Rick Barnes know the legal issues here!! 

[joethetaxpayer]

Response to Peter re Liability.
Please read all application details pertaining to hour of the pool , lifeguard on duty or not, AND if the pool is keep locked in absence of lifeguard.
By leaving the gate unlocked, it is probable that claims would be denied if the gate status says locked and there is any accident during that time.
Every insurance company looks at claims to mitigate payouts. So policy may not provide coverage IF the gate is left unlocked.
I walked by there recently, gate was not only unlocked, but open and no one was around.
Every one of the officers would be exposed to potential claim.

Every neighborhood pool that I have inquired about, simply issues keys to the paid members. Even if these keys have to be replaced every two years, it  only amounts to about $100-$150. Small price for the protection it offers.

[Resident]

Remember the accident last June? http://www.tennesseeinjurylawyerblog.com/swimming_pool_accident/ How would an accident from an unlocked pool in Belmont West be different than the South Knoxville apartment complex? I doubt any insurance company paying a claim when negligence is involved.

[Peter Keese]

Thanks, Joe, I'll check further on our coverage.

[joethetaxpayer]

 Regarding the Pool left unlocked: I think the Web link article indicated by "Resident" should thoroughly explain our concerns, and the potential liabilities.
There is no basic protection easier than "Lock and Key".
I think we all should feel fortunate, that we haven't had a recent event here.

Thank you "Resident" for the article. It should elevate our awareness.