2/ 70% of the condo owners like X, but 30% dislike her. So the 30% raised the issue that she was illegally appointed and can't hold the role. Slam dunk, case closed. But my relative sees things differently: * X is great * this is very mean * they coordinated ahead of time
-
-
Show this thread
-
3/ All of which...has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Because the condo documents make it clear that the president may appoint condo owners. I raised this point, Devil's Advocate style. His response?
Show this thread -
4/ "Yeah, but we're saying back that this is INCLUSIVE of my powers. I can appoint an owner...but that doesn't mean I can't appoint a non owner!" Sigh. So...you think that it is implicit that you can appoint a resident of Beijing, a guy who lives in Texas, or a guy across town
Show this thread -
5/ ...and the establishing documents were written with a point of view where all of that was obvious to everyone, but the founders were worried that folks might NOT think that the president can appoint people who own condos, so they made sure to include THAT class explicitly
Show this thread -
6/ Basically, my relative is like my town zoning board. HE KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS TO DO, AND HE WILL MISCONSTRUE THE DOCUMENTS IN ANY CONTORTED READING AS IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A FIG LEAF
Show this thread -
New conversation -
-
-
That's not fair.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.