Select Page

John Pizzolato

Board Trustee

I had heard that one resident commented that I appear to be a rogue Board member going against what other Board members want to accomplish. I was elected to this Board to be the “voice for the people”. To protect Residents rights from overzealous individuals wanting to take their rights away. That was a promise I made during Candidate’s night which I am determined to keep. I will not shy away in the Board room from fighting for Residents rights, whether that be their right to engage in Social Gambling or being able to invite guests to functions, as so many Communities around us allow. If that makes me a rogue Board member, then maybe I am. 

If you missed the Open Board meeting on September 4th, you missed seeing our Residents expressing what they viewed as the Board infringing on their rights. It all began, during a closed Board meeting on May 22nd, when the Board voted 4-1 to limit the amount our Residents can play poker for. That amount was capped at only $100. This was done, over my strenuous objections, because NJ law puts absolutely NO buy-in limits on legal games. That vote had to be repeated during the Open Board meeting on September 4th, when the residents had the chance to express their concerns.  

It is not just poker players whose rights are being affected, for the rights of all mahjong players are also being affected when they were told by the Board that they could not run a tournament for money, even though NJ law regarding Social Gambling gives them every right to do so. 

These two decisions will also affect residents who are playing Bunco, Hand and Foot, Canasta, Rummy, or any other game being played in the Clubhouse if ever they wish to engage in Social Gambling.

I want to thank those individuals for standing up during the Open Board meeting against this rights infringement.

    • Marty Lisella read from a prepared statement charging the Board with infringing upon Resident’s rights to enjoy the Community Facilities. Marty’s statement abruptly ended due to the Chairperson’s gavel.
    • Maureen Siragusa expressed similar concerns, expressing the Board has no right to rule on such a matter
    • Dave Fleischl asked why $100 was used as the limit
    • In support of the Board’s decision, Maureen Forte (Realty Solutions) expressed concern pertaining to fiduciary responsibility and the potential for lawsuits.
    • A gentleman in the front row tried to show how ridiculous Moureen Forte’s argument sounded when he tried to compare the potential of a lawsuit by playing low limit poker with the very real potential of a lawsuit by inviting guests into our pool. His objection was also cut short by the Chairperson’s gavel.
    • Margaret Quinn also objected to this vote and asked the Board to look further into this matter.
    • Other residents expressed objections from their chairs.

Because of the Resident’s objections and because the meeting was getting unruly, due to a gavel yielding Chairperson in attempting to shut down speakers, the other Board members decided to table this vote until a later time, giving them the opportunity to look into it further. I was also met with the Chairperson’s gavel when I attempted to explain to the Residents how having vague By-laws is paving the way for a Board to dictate away Resident’s rights.

A few days later, in an attempt to satisfy the Residents who felt their rights were violated, I offered the other Board members a compromise. My proposal was to increase the buy-in limit of all community scheduled poker events to $200. The other members of the Board accepted my proposal, and it was formally voted on during the October Board meeting. The vote was repeated during the Open Board Meeting on November 18th and was ratified.

IT’S NOT OVER-WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS FROM FUTURE BOARDS

We need to learn by this attempt to infringe on Resident’s rights. The makeup of our Board has the potential of changing every year because of elections. Because of this any future Board, by a vote of only 3, can decide to vacate this decision and do something worse, like not allowing any legal Social Gambling in the Clubhouse at all. Because our By-laws are so vague when it comes to the Board’s authority over Resident’s this can very well happen, unless we, the Residents, do something to prevent it.

As soon as the Transition with DR Horton is completed our community will make changes to its By-laws. Developer items that are no longer applicable will be removed and certain items will be amended or added as a result of Jersey law. In order for these changes to be ratified a yes vote from 67% of the residents is needed.

We need to add the necessary language into our By-laws that will prevent any future Boards from infringing on Resident’s rights when it comes to all forms of legal Social Gambling. We need the following verbiage added:

If any resident(s) want to organize and play a game in the Clubhouse or any Common area, that is a legal game in NJ, adhering to NJ gambling statutes, the Board does not have the authority to prohibit, interfere, dictate, or place limits on the games.

I made a request to Gary Colarossi, who is the Board member spear heading the By-law modifications, that this statement needs to be added to the By-laws that we will vote on. His answer was that he will research it and see how other Communities handle this issue.

I cannot support any changes or updates to the By-laws if it doesn’t have this protection in it. I can tell you, that my household will not vote to ratify the new By-laws unless this statement is added to the By-laws protecting our rights from future Boards.

This is how we make sure our rights are not taken away from us by an overzealous future Board. Remember, it only takes a majority (3 Board Members) to vote away your rights. I did run this by an attorney to make sure there was nothing in NJ law precluding this from being added to the By-laws of a community with more than 50 households. There isn’t!

In order for the By-laws to be ratified and accepted, 67% of all households have to vote Yes. If 67% of the households in our community do not vote Yes, the By-laws cannot be changed.

By-Law Survey

After learning what has happened this year, this survey is asking Residents if they are concerned future Board Members may vote to infringe upon their rights. The makeup of Board Members can change every year with our elections. It only takes three votes to ratify a vote.

If you take this survey multiple times your last one will only be counted.

Your survey answers are confidential and will not be disclosed to anyone, but I do require you provide your name and address to verify you are a resident

 

First Name: (Req)   Last Name: (Req)
         
House Number: (Req)   Street: (Req)

         
Are You Concerned Future Boards Might Take Away Residents Rights? (Select One)
     
Yes  
     
No  
     
No Opinion  
     
Fill in the answer: 17 + 01 =
 
 
 
 

After Clicking the Button Select the Board / Year Folders