Letters to the Editor
Editor:
This is in response to Jeff Colflesh’s letter (May 26) regarding a Trump banner. Mine is not a political opinion but an issue of aesthetics.
The flags and banners waving in front of a minority of residences remind me of a discount mart, not an attractive retirement village.
The flags and banners are unattractive, presumptuous, alienating and just plain ugly. They are an embarrassment.
GRF would better serve our residents by taking a look at this issue rather than focusing on bad hygiene, as addressed in Stevin Cohen’s letter (May 26). Kathryn Zajic Mutual 15 Editor’s note: The GRF cannot prohibit residents from displaying signs concerning issues of politics and social justice because it is expressly forbidden by California Legislature. It is considered protected free speech. Specifically, under California Civil Code section 4710(a), “governing documents may not prohibit posting or displaying of noncommercial signs, posters, flags or banners on or in a member’s separate interest, except as required for the protection of public health or safety or if the posting or display would violate a local, state or federal law.” Editor: Kudos are due to GRF Board President Susan Hopewell for trying to improve how the board interacts with residents. Most people don’t want to get involved with the Mutual or GRF boards with their myriad rules and procedures. They just want things done.
After a board’s agenda is published, it’s necessary to follow it because it’s the right thing to do and because state law says so. In the past, if a resident had an opinion about something that was on the agenda, it was necessary to attend the meeting to voice concerns before a decision was made.
Email communication is instantaneous and leaves a permanent record. It has changed how residents communicate with their directors. If an email is handled like a physical letter, it will have to be pushed off to the next month’s meeting so that the email could be included in the next agenda.
This led to a lot of frustration on the part of residents, who felt that their concerns were being ignored by the board. But if the email was dealt with as an instant communication and read to the board as a shareholder comment at the outset of the meeting, then resident input could be considered by the board members before they made a decision. This new innovation of considering an email as instant communication that can be heard by the board before decisions are made is a fine improvement for our community.
John Hlavac Mutual 12
