An
Opinion By Jan Bergemann May 9, 2006
Officially,
CALL (Community Association Leadership Lobby) is the lobbying arm of
Becker & Poliakoff P.A., the largest specialized association law
firm in Florida. According to its website, CALL is (quote):
"The leading organization working to enhance the quality of life
and protect property values for Florida's community association
residents." (end quote)
In a recent article of the Daily Business Review, headlined "No Love Lost," the reporter quoted condominium board president MaryAnn Casatelli (Lighthouse Point Plaza Condominium) on various occasions attacking the condo ombudsman's office. Casatelli took it upon herself to join CALL, paying $200 for the annual membership from her private checking account. At a later board meeting she asked the board for a vote on reimbursing these funds. The board obliged -- see Check Register:
As
you can see, it's accounted for under “Taxes-Licenses-Fees.”
Even inquiring minds have to look twice to find out about it.
Other associations booked it under "Office Expenses"!
Board vote or not -- using association dues to pay for membership
in a lobbying group is in my opinion a clear violation of the fiduciary
duty of the board president. I
doubt you'll find in the paragraph of the association documents dealing
with USE OF FEES something like: "Association dues can be used to
pay for membership in a lobbying group that fights owner-friendly
legislation." Next we will see a board president donating association
funds to a political candidate!
That clearly contradicts the many e-mails from boards and condo owners thanking election monitors for their excellent services. Complimentary e-mails from board members and unit owners!
Since the Florida legislature created the Office of the Condo Ombudsman and with it the election monitors, many condo associations saw a strong increase in number of candidates and election participation of unit owners.
The e-mails to Berger that complained about the election monitors may have come from ousted board members, who for the first time in many years had to face fair elections conducted by election monitors -- and didn't make the cut! Some of them are definitely very unhappy, because new boards are conducting investigations into their financial dealings and it looks like there will even be some indictments. Even the IRS is involved in one case! There are many more examples that show this pattern!
Florida's legislature did create the position of election monitors for a reason: Election shenanigans, supported and perpetrated by managers and attorneys, have always been one of the major complaints from condo owners. Recent elections stirred up lots of controversies, like the one in the Playa Del Mar Condo in Ft. Lauderdale. Attorney, manager and sitting board deterred and detained the officially appointed election monitors. In the meanwhile, the ballot box went out of sight -- who knows what happened -- and the people left in charge "forgot" to sign in the condo owners. Still today nobody knows if there was ever a quorum to hold a meeting. But it seems all was done to protect a sitting board member, who, according to the bylaws, can't even serve on the board since he is not a recorded owner as required. But that doesn't stop Robert Rubinstein, the Becker & Poliakoff P.A. attorney, from defending the position at the expense of the condo owners. See: Bylaws clearly state: Board member must be an owner! And despite complaints being filed -- the annual meeting was in February -- the DBPR has failed so far to take any action -- as usual!
In another recall dispute in the Maison Grande Condominium in Miami Beach evidence showed that Rosa M. De La Camara, another Becker & Poliakoff P.A. attorney, was aware that a board member served on the board contrary to the bylaws. But, instead of telling the board members that this is not acceptable, she suggests to ignore it for the time being. Please read the e-mail yourself:
Many condo owners were under the impression that an attorney retained for the association was supposed to represent the whole association, not just looking out for the personal agenda of a few board members, even if they are the ones signing the retainer agreements.
The newest variation of fixing the election before election monitors are taking over? Remove the election ballots of the owners who are known to oppose the sitting board from the ballot box. It's easy: The unit-numbers on the envelopes betray the voting members.
We
all have seen the old movies where the bad guys came into the shops
asking for protection money! Does
this remind you?
Looking into these examples -- and many more documented arbitration cases -- it seems being a member of CALL gives sitting board members some sort of “protection” against opposing unit owners. It looks like the old guard needs more and more protection, since younger owners are moving into these associations -- younger members with inquiring minds, who don't mind getting involved in association politics, especially when they realize that their financial welfare is at stake!
The Question Remains: WHAT IS CALL REALLY ALL ABOUT? |