CONDO ELECTIONS -- HOW DIFFICULT CAN IT BE?

An Opinion By Jan Bergemann
President, Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.

Published August 31, 2009

You surely don't need to be Einstein to follow the condo election procedures as detailed in Florida Statutes 718.112(2d). And for everybody who thinks that the statutes contain too much legalese, there are many resources available that explain the actual procedure in plain English -- see for example: CONDOMINIUM ELECTION PROCESS OVERVIEW

But as we can see over and over again, it's not lack of knowledge or incompetence that creates the election disputes. It's the unwillingness of board members and/or community association managers to follow the rules. And if somebody complains about the violation of the statutes, these board members call it harassment. According to Merriam Webster, "to harass" means "to annoy persistently." Actually, in a way I can understand that people can get annoyed if they get constantly reminded that they are breaking the laws!

As most of you know -- it is pretty difficult to convince the DBPR -- Bureau of Compliance -- to order a new election, even if lots of rules and procedures were violated. Earlier this year we saw the example of the election of the Plaza East Condominium in Ft. Lauderdale, an election dispute that has in the meanwhile developed into a big lawsuit against sitting board members and the association manager. Both, president and manager, resigned recently.

That makes the order of the DBPR to hold a new election of the board for the ASHBY "D" CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. in Deerfield Beach (Century Village East) even more remarkable. But even if the VIOLATION LETTER dated April 28, 2009 contained strong language, and the demand to conduct a new election a.s.a.p., it's now the end of August -- and still no election. It's supposed to take place this week. But don't forget, the deadline for sending out the first notice [60-day notice] for their December elections is getting closer.

But, as usual, there is a lot more to the election dispute than meets the eye. We always hear that there are insufficient candidates for the board elections. Here is a typical example why many owners chose not to run against a sitting board.

Many sitting boards -- and especially board presidents -- will do everything to defend their position of power -- a position that is often not as straight "voluntary" as it looks -- and as it should be according to Florida statutes.

In this case the dispute started when owners challenged actions of the sitting board and, with no answers but insults forthcoming, turned to the DBPR and filed complaints. Very successful complaints as both the WARNING LETTER dated December 1, 2008 and the VIOLATION LETTER dated April 28, 2009 clearly show. According to the DBPR, the Ashby D board violated serious financial matters -- and not just once! The DBPR letters quotes a long list of violations -- all about the association funds.

But that doesn't stop the board president Joseph Sachs and his "supporters" from telling their neighbors that there is really nothing wrong and it is all just a harassment campaign conducted by these 5 (five) opposition candidates -- a campaign that clearly has no merits! Please read the E-MAIL mailed out by board president Joseph Sachs on August 20, 2009. He plainly calls all this harassment and (quote): "a bunch of other stuff that is only lies."

Caryl Greenblatt, one of the opposing candidates, had this to say about all the "lies" (quote): "The Board is on probation for two years for "failure to maintain sufficient accounting records". In addition, the Board has been found in violation of seven other counts. Six of those concern financial matters. We knew there were issues -- and the DBPR letters are proof of it!"

Then Sachs refers in his e-mail to a meeting that was held in March 2009 which the candidates didn't attend -- calling it lack of interest. Would you attend a meeting that lists "Harassment from Ashby D 5" as the #1 agenda item, if you are one of the 5? This invitation sounded more like the invitation to a hate rally against these candidates than a meeting to exchange factual opinions.

And the night before the election the board posted the copy of a letter from the association attorney in a locked display case in the hallway, containing the regular intimidation wording like: "Shut up or we sue you for defamation." [That's the short version!]

Considering the contents of the DBPR letters, this attorney letter was most likely more a joke than a serious threat. Knowing the facts, I doubt Joseph Sachs and the board members wanted to open themselves up to discovery by filing such a lawsuit. Checked for all the skeletons in the closet lately?

The problems in Florida's community associations will continue as long as the owners fail to understand that these associations are serious businesses and that these associations can make their money disappear as fast as Bernie Madoff. These are not social clubs. These are for many owners corporations whose boards have lots of power over their welfare. For many of these owners it's the biggest investment of their life: THEIR HOMES and their LIFE SAVINGS!

But still many owners vote for board members who are "such nice guys" -- and don't seem to care if these "nice guys" are violating the laws that are supposed to protect them and their financial welfare.

Jerry Raines, another one of the opposing candidates, said (quote): "Unfortunately, the vulnerable little old ladies and the snowbirds seldom exhibit this tenacity to check the facts. The greedy and power hungry individuals who take over a building are counting on this. They know they are violating Chapter 718 with impunity, but they are betting no one has the patience and determination to take them to the mat over it. In the case of Ashby D, they are betting wrong."

We always hear association boards defending themselves, claiming that they just have the best of the association members in mind when violating the laws. That may be the truth sometimes, but only too often we see the laws violated to serve personal agendas.

How about this defense of a speeding ticket in front of a judge: "Your Honor, I admit that I drove a lot faster than the speeding limit allowed. And I'm sorry, I ran over a few pedestrians on the way in my attempt to reach my goal faster. Please understand that I always had good intentions and actually reached my planned destination much faster!"

Do you honestly think that this defense would work?

Think about it –

the next time you vote for the members of your association board!