Alanna Brown wrote:
It sounds like you are proceeding well but have a sticky problem. Is
the representative one of the necessary formers or simply someone you
have brought into the process because you think the front of the road
should be involved?
If not one of the formers, that makes it
more a political problem, less a legal one. By that I mean the formers
can prepare for the first meeting by drawing up bylaws for a vote
however the formers want but in the end the vote will be what governs.
sounds like the person may be trying to drum up support among the
"front" people to oppose the "back" people. That is a political thing
and maybe you are best off trying to get in touch with the "front"
people and educate and involve them yourself. If you can somehow do
that it might defuse what sounds like a polarizing process that is/has
been going on. I know this is not easy, and armchair advice which I
myself would have difficulty following, but it does come to mind as a
If however you don't have the numbers to form an association without someone from the front, that is an even stickier problem.
I have a feeling a situation like this may occur on road associations often, and it a good discussion to bring to this forum.
As it applies to our situation; it is definitely a political issue. It does seem to be a power struggle as the front, accordingly, argues that they do have the votes to pass. They argue that we must develop something that will pass "their" approval, even if the the conclusions seem unfair to those at the other end. My contention is that with the flexibility of the statute road association, NO ONE has to feel they are treated unfairly. If we don't make allowances for fairness, we can be held liable as an association by any individual willing to press the issue.
It's not right makes right only, as my contention is that the fewer people at the back, have supplied much of the plowing, grading, ditching etc. free of charge for the last 15 years the entire road that it's been an informal association as they have the equipment to do so.They will continue after the RA is formed, but no longer free of charge. They also have deep legal pockets which could present a problem for all if not treated fairly. The ratio of year round residents is 3 to 1 (15 to 5), front to back; so the front definitely has a voting majority.
The biggest sticking points include, the front wants to charge the back full fee without the same maintenance once formed and not compensate the back for any of the free labor they now provide. We could save a lot on expenditures by using compensated in house labor over contracting with an outside provider as the equipment the back provides is full size commercial equipment and expertise.
Are these reasonable assumptions and is this compensation a doable item ?
I am presently preparing a statement for the next meeting with all of our options, but all from a fairness point of view. I'm mainly interested with the negotiating successes you have had dealing with the intractable nature of the situation...
Forgive me for the winded explanation.