Lake Safety Committee
By: Bruce C. Bower

I was again shocked at the unbelievable number of dangerous violations that I saw in only a couple of hours in one day.

So, here are some of the new and unique antics of our neighbors:

Drive your jet ski very fast in a very tight circle about six times to get up momentum, then floor it so you can stand the ski up on end, as in an aquatic wheelie. Two kids and an adult on a two person ski, but have about a ten year old steering, then a four or five year old , lastly the “adult”. The “adult” is the one in charge, the teacher, the protector. How about a boatload of people on a pontoon boat with two youngsters sitting outside the playpen on the bow? Consider that if you fall into the water, you have more than a 50-50 chance of going between the toons and meeting up with Mr. Propeller. These are all new unbelievably reckless and stupid acts to me. I am always amazed.

Now for the repeat acts of recklessness, but without the creative first time uniqueness: Speeding after dark, way after dark. No wake speed after 8:00 PM on fireworks night, but ignore that and fly. Driving with the dock lights on, blinding everyone coming in the other direction. Of course, the usual speeding way inside the 75 foot no wake zone. People following too close to other boats, especially boats towing kids. Jet skis going between cruising boats and the shoreline, way too close to shore. Jet skis obviously going way over 50 MPH.

Now the disappointment of my fireworks night was observing the unbelievable number of boats, at anchor, with their running lights on. Some had the anchor light on and others didn’t. It seems easy to me that whilst moving you put on your red, green and white lights. While standing still, only the white should be on, and NOT your dock lights the other white one.

Here’s a new topic that I was asked to speak about. A brand new shiny boat was seen trying to anchor near the dam. They were not successful on several attempts to set the anchor off the stern (the back). First you never anchor off the stern for you can get swamped from a wave. You tie your anchor to the bow (the front). You should have done your investigating to find out what type of anchor to use, how long the line (rope) should be for the depth of the water, and how much chain you should use between the anchor and the line (rope) to weigh down the line (rope). A plan that may work would be to take a boating class, either on-line or in person, read a book or ring up ODNR and see what they have to offer. Maybe even pull something up on your Google machine. Do you detect any cynicism here? Depending on the year there are between 800 and 1100 boat tags sold each season. None of these watercraft are equipped with:  brakes, bumpers, roll-bars, air bags or turn signals. That is a lot of very fast and potentially unsafe vehicles that have truly only one safety feature, YOUR common sense, personal responsibility, and knowledge of boating.

Once again this article is basically the same as the last July report. This is a tough thing to have to say about our Community. So, are we making any progress and what can we do about it?  As always, call me with your thoughts or if you want to holler back on 216.906.2301.

Think SAFETY

Bower out.

By The RomeRock Association Board of Directors.

Who were the parties to the Lawsuit?
Lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs: Neighbors for a Better Roaming Shores Inc., Barry O’Connell, Pat Long, and Joseph W Petraus.  The suit was filed against Defendants: RomeRock Association, Dell Rogers, Rick Gainar, Ed Baitt, John Martin, and Tom Sopko.  Date filed: March 20, 2014.

What was the Lawsuit About?
The Lawsuit was about how a Bylaw change was implemented.  The Plaintiffs claimed a Bylaw was incorrectly implemented.  The Bylaw was believed to be implemented as any other Bylaw.  The Bylaw in question was Article 2. Section 16.  This Article/Section essentially requires the Board of Directors to seek Member approval for borrowing or assessing over $500,000.  This amendment is about borrowing and assessing, not about the dollar size or scope of a project.

Why wasn’t the Amendment just done again?
The Board believed the implementation of this Bylaw to be no different than any other Bylaw implementation including Bylaws done by O’Connell, Long and Petraus when they were Directors.  The Board did not want other Bylaws to come into question if this Amendment had to be done over.  Our legal counsel recommended not doing the Amendment over.

Can I see copies of the lawsuit and settlement documents?
Yes.  These items have always been available through the Ashtabula Clerk of Courts.  These items are now posted on the Association Website with this Q & A.  The Bylaws and Rules can also be found on the Website.

Isn’t Mediation required by the Bylaws as a first step to an objection?
Yes.  The “Mediation Bylaw”, which was implemented when Barry O’Connell was Board President, was not the first step chosen by the Plaintiffs.    The Lawsuit was chosen as their first step.  Mediation, as stipulated in the Bylaws, was subsequently ordered by the Judge.

What were the costs of this Lawsuit?
The defense costs which are the Association costs, were approximately $40,000; this is actual out of pocket costs, and does not include the time of the Board, time of office personnel, or the cost of the lead Attorney provided by our Insurance Company under Directors and Officers Insurance.  This equates to approximately $36 per dues paying Active Member.  The costs of the Attorney provided by our Insurance Company are estimated to be in the range of $18,000 to $20,000, and are in addition to the Association costs.  All these costs were accumulated over a 27 month period.  The Plaintiff’s costs are unknown to the Association.

Why was there a $25 One-Time Legal Assessment?
The Board believed that the reduction in maintenance of amenities caused by the Lawsuit was not fair to the general Active Members.  As it is, the Legal Assessment only covered about $27,000 of the Lawsuit costs.

Why was it necessary to sue Board Members personally?
It is not understood why Neighbors for a Better Roaming Shores Inc, Barry O’Connell, Pat Long, and Joseph W. Petraus found it necessary to personally sue unpaid volunteer Board members.  Nor it is not understood why other Board Members at the time, Gary Stamm and Rick Rumbaugh, were not part of the suit.

Why was there a Settlement Agreement and a Referendum Ballot?
As part of the court ordered Mediation, the Board agreed to the Settlement Agreement.  We had three independent estimates that to take the Lawsuit to conclusion in the Courts, would cost the Association an additional $60,000 to $100,000.  Total cost to the Association would then be in the neighborhood of $100,000 to $140,000.  Although the Board believed it was on solid ground, the Board did not want to spend 10% or more of an annual budget for the Lawsuit.  Hence, we reluctantly agreed to the Settlement that included the Referendum Ballot.  The Referendum Ballot was a vote on whether to keep or do away with Article 2, Section 16.  If Article 2, Section 16 were removed, the Board of Directors could bind the Members to unlimited amounts of money borrowing or assessing.

What was the result of the Referendum Ballot?
The results were 80 Yes votes and 426 No votes.  This means that Article 2. Section 16 remains as a Bylaw. This means that the Board of Directors must seek Member approval for borrowing or assessing over $500,000.  A simple majority of Yes votes cast could have removed this Bylaw. 

Is it over?
The current Board believes that the Lawsuit is over and hopes that the Association can move ahead with the business of being a lake recreational home owners association.

The Board of Directors thanks you for your support and patience.

Documents:

• Neighbors et al Lawsuit Against RRA
• Settlement Agreement signed

A big thanks go out to Rachel Schulze who built flower boxes around the informational kiosks located at our pools as part of her Girl Scout Gold Award!

The kiosks were constructed by her brother, Reed Schulze, for his Eagle Scout project.