Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Dr. Joyce Starr.  I have been a member of the Board of the Bonavida Condominium Association in Aventura, Florida since January 2004, and wish to share with you some observations about the problems of protecting condominium owners’ rights, based on my experiences on the Bonavida Board.

My professional background includes serving as an adviser on strategic and environmental issues.  I have held various U.S. government positions and headed environmental and other programs for such institutions as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv University in Israel.

In my experience, the dice are loaded today against individual condominium board members and unit owners in the State of Florida who seek to question illegality or incompetence (or both) on the part of those running the day-to-day affairs of their condominium association. 

Basic rights of unit owners can be trampled upon with relative impunity.  Condo owners who seek to challenge incompetence, irresponsibility or even illegal actions by those in charge of a condominium, may need great courage, determination, and a very ‘deep pocket’ to succeed.  The dice are loaded against those who dare to question even flagrant illegality, mismanagement and abuse of office.  Though there may be legal remedies in theory, these may not provide practical relief in practice--particularly if irresponsible condo officers (assisted by law firms willing to ‘ask no questions’) abuse the arbitration procedures of the State of Florida’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (“DBPR”) to stifle dissent and punish condo owners who challenge mismanagement.

In practice, condo owners can be ‘stonewalled’ in their efforts to obtain information about the management of their condo--information to which they are legally entitled.  Their written demands can go unheeded, with little or no fear of sanction.

In the case of the Bonavida Condominium, the president of the Board seems answerable to no one.

Bonavida’s president repeatedly refuses to give unit owners information requested in writing and to which they are lawfully entitled--even including information on legal costs incurred by the Association in suing unit owners.  The president has even publicly claimed that she is not required to reveal to unit owners how much was authorized and spent on legal actions against unit owners. 

Claiming authority from the Board, but in fact acting without Board approval, Bonavida’s president has instructed the law firm of Glazer and Associates, P.A., in Hallandale, to take legal actions on behalf of our condo association in at least three cases against unit owners, for violating a ‘no-pets’ clause in our condominium Declaration that has been dormant for years.   Critics claim that the law firm knew or should have known that the Board had never authorized such legal actions.

Taking legal action can be a convenient but targeted tactic for a high-handed condo president who wishes to divert attention from his or her own misconduct, to try to silence condo owners who question such conduct.  Pursuing residents for keeping pets can be a particularly convenient tactic, even if a no-pets clause in condo documents has been dormant for many years.  Few residents would have the courage or practical ability to challenge a law firm claiming to be acting on behalf of their condo association!

In the case of the Bonavida, the Board adopted a motion in November 2004, stating that the so-called 'no pet clause' of the Bonavida’s Declaration would be considered at a special meeting of unit owners, to be convened in 2005.  Without even waiting for the results of this review, the president and treasurer authorized a series of legal actions against residents costing thousands of dollars. The president has yet to call the meeting of unit owners mandated by the Board nearly 8 months ago.  In the meantime, the president and treasurer have authorized the Glazer law firm to bring at least three claims against unit owners.  In one case the claim was against a resident who had kept two small parakeets.  The Board’s president instructed the Glazer firm to pursue that case even after the resident had removed the birds from the building!

Asked why she signed the authorizations mentioned above, the treasurer recently said,  "I sign what Marilyn (a reference to Marilyn Krisbergh, the president of the Board) tells me to sign.”

There is a serious question as to whether the Glazer law firm was complicit in this sorry tale, and some residents have suggested an investigation of the role of the Glazer law firm--in particular whether the Glazer law firm acted properly, in accordance with the Rules of the Florida Bar and Florida law.

You will not be surprised to learn that the Bonavida’s president fails to call regular Board meetings, and that when the rare meeting is held, it is marked by serious irregularities.

The Bonavida’s president also ignores requests to seek competitive bids for managing the condominium’s property, insisting that the current property manager be present at all discussions of this subject by our unit owners.  Asked why she refuses to allow competitive bids for the property manager’s role contract, she claimed “we like him”.  Needless to say, the Board has not approved her position in this regard.

Residents at Bonavida are particularly concerned that the condominium property is threatened by toxic mold. The health of residents is clearly at risk, yet no remedial action has been taken.

I first discovered the mold problem in our building in February 2004, when a contractor working in my unit brought this matter to my attention.  I quickly informed the president, who asked property manager Mr. Merrill Spivak (Roberts Management) to assess the situation.  Mr. Spivak decided that the mold was simply dirt, and directed the building’s maintenance employees to clean and paint over the mold!

I insisted that that we needed a more thorough investigation. Finally, in April 2004, the Board approved a motion to undertake research on contractors who could perform a more thorough investigation, to invite bids for this work and to review these bids at a future Board workshop.

Mold screening undertaken by one outside consultant in late 2004 confirmed “water damage and fungal amplification” on corridor ceilings, with the recommendation “that a contractor with experience in microbial remediation should conduct all the material removal.”

The process thereafter ground to a dead stop.

Finally, after the State’s Condominium Ombudsman, Dr Virgil Rizzo, sent a warning letter addressed to the Bonavida Board about a number of allegations of mismanagement, including “failing to address serious mold problems,” Bonavida’s president was stimulated to act (although it is worth noting that she never shared Dr Rizzo’s letter with the Board or invited Board consideration of the matter).  She contacted the Bioscience mold remediation company, whose chairman, Peter Shippole, told me in April 2005 that they found the Bonavida to be “filthy” with mold.

Bonavida’s president convened a Board workshop in May 2005.  The stated purpose was to invite three companies to present their plans and costs on mold remediation, including Bioscience.  Yet, she called this meeting at 1:00 pm on a weekday, when only a handful of persons could attend.

No contract has yet been let, and no action has yet been taken to deal with the deteriorating situation. A year and a half has gone by since the mold was first detected.  If and when action is finally taken, I fear that the mold remediation will be done shoddily. Indeed, the president recently told me that, “we prefer the cheapest mold contractor.”  Needless to say, in using the term “we” she had no Board authority to back her up--there has been no Board discussion of contractor bids.

In practice, at least until now, the Bonavida Board’s president has been able to get away with such conduct, with impunity.  There has been no accountability. Indeed, I suspect that many residents may hesitate to say anything publicly about management problems in the presence of the current manager, for fear of possible reprisals.  In such circumstances, as you can imagine, efforts to unseat existing officers and directors can face a host of practical obstacles.

If Bonavida residents could speak to you today, they might ask:

• Can you ensure more practical and effective means of protection against misconduct by condo officers and board members, abuse of their fiduciary duties and misuse of condo funds? 

• Can you ensure that condo officers and board members are more accountable?

• Can you ensure that urgent action can be taken when needed to address mold toxicity or other urgent problems affecting the health of condo residents?

• Can you ensure the availability of more practical and effective means of assuring that competitive bids are obtained.

• Can you provide more effective protection against abuses of the DBPR arbitration procedures by condo associations, in bringing ‘enforcement actions’ against condo unit owners?

• Can you ensure that more effective protection is available for the right of access to information that is required to be disclosed to condominium owners under Florida law?

I thank you for your time.

Dr. Joyce Starr

June 25, 2005