From: Joseph Sachs <[email protected]>
Subject:
To: "Joe Sachs" <[email protected]>
Received: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 1:32 PM

Here are both articles ,so you can have a better understanding of this unfortunate situation :

Jeff Chester  

This article was submitted by a person who would prefer to remain anonymous. I have seen the actual orders from the DBPR and have a personal knowledge of the situation.

The Florida DBPR (Department of Business and Professional Regulation) ordered new elections at Ashby D after it found serious procedural flaws in the December, 2008, election.  These flaws were not nitpicking abstractions.  They were critical, and they most likely altered the outcome of the election.  The residents of Century Village should find the underlying story useful and informative.

Unfortunately, those who most need to know the truth will most like never read this.  They are the unit owners in Ashby D who do not have computer access, are not fluent in English, and/or blindly trust the incumbent president for news concerning the financial and political matters of the building.

It should be noted that the DBPR originally demanded new elections be held no later than May, 2009; however, the incumbent Board procrastinated and resisted so that the new elections will not take place until September. If the board is not cooperative regarding the new date the Division will immediately and irreversibly file a Notice to Show Cause Action against the Association and, where possible, against the individual Directors responsible for the violation.

If one had been present at the original December,2008, election meeting, the affronts to the DBPR and to the democratic process would have been glaringly obvious.  Biographies of the candidates were never distributed to the voters, in violation of Chapter 718,  so no one really knew the credentials of all of the candidates. Compounding this, there was absolutely no provision for statements by candidates, for debate, for discussion of the issues, or for questions from the voters.  As a result, the voting deteriorated to an unreliable and at times vicious popularity contest.

 Further, this election meeting was not legally an election meeting at all.  The election was one of just many items on the agenda of a more general meeting.  Its importance was submerged in a sea of self accolades by the incumbent Board as it ballyhooed its achievements of the past year.  According to Chapter 718, however, the election meeting must be a separate event dedicated entirely to the election process.

Proxy votes are not allowed in the election tally, according to Chapter 718; however, the incumbents gathered and submitted a proxy vote from an absentee owner who is suffering from dementia.  When the opposition protested, the incumbents claimed that the co-owner signed the ballot for her.  But there is no co-owner on the deed to the unit!

 The incumbents apparently took drastic measures to discredit opposition candidates, although two of those candidates had previously served honorably on the Board.  On the eve of the election, a defamatory letter, naming the five opposition candidates, was posted under locked glass in the lobby of the building.  The letter threatened to sue the opposition candidates for vague reasons that were never specified or explained in detail. Who posted the letter?

Only the incumbent Board members had keys to the lock.  Why was it posted on the eve of the election, and why was it so vague, if not for the sole purpose of influencing that election?

After the election, an "emergency meeting" was called by the president.  Topping the agenda was alleged "harassment by the opposition candidates".  In fact, this was nothing more than a hate rally, punctuated by vicious  name calling, for the purposes of quashing further opposition and giving the incumbents carte blanche to impose any rules, restrictions, and assessments they please.

 Another "very important meeting" has been called.  Listed on the agenda is "Why is a new election necessary?"  It remains to be seen if the true reasons will be disclosed, or if it will simply be another hate rally for the purpose of vilifying the opposition as evil "troublemakers".

In flagrant violation of Chapter 718, on the agenda of this "very important meeting" is the new election itself.  But the election meeting must be separate and apart from any meeting with a more general agenda.  This is the same procedure flaw as committed in the December, 2008, election. 

One cannot help but wonder why the incumbents resort to such draconian tactics to retain positions that are purely voluntary and without material perks or compensation.

Second article by Wendy Rosenzveig

From mycve, this morning.
“This article was submitted by a person who would prefer to remain
anonymous.. I have seen the actual orders from the DBPR and have a
personal knowledge of the situation.”  Jeff Chester.

I'll bet he would, and I bet he has.

Jeff blithely states that the person would prefer to remain anonymous.
I'll bet he would indeed!

While this worthy asks why would people take draconian steps to retain
their places on the Board of Ashby D, we can speculate as to why this
person prefers to remain anonymous. He appears to have no sense of
shame, so what is he hiding from?  Having never chosen to remain
anonymous myself, the reason eludes me.

I do know that while I was still acceptable on mycve, I wrote some
pieces in which I expressed outrage at the repeated vandalism of a car
which belonged to Joe Sachs.  Someone at Ashby D began sending me
anonymous letters, and asking me to understand that Joe had caused the
damage because of his evil ways. Several personal emails later, it was
clear that I could not change their minds based on any moral
considerations, or concern for the welfare of the Village, and they
failed to convince me that Joe deserved whatever happened to him. I
heard no more from this correspondent. This bizarre incident came to
my mind this morning as I read the accusations against Joe Sachs, and
the attempt by Jeff Chester to verify the truth of some of the
allegations.

In the past, Joe Sachs has often been a staunch supporter and friend
of Jeff Chester.
It is no secret that all this has changed. The rift was caused when
Joe discovered that Jeff was, “advising” the rival faction, made up of
five people in Ashby D, on what they alleged were Joe’s illegal
activities, and what they could do about it. Joe was understandably
incensed that this was going on behind his back, which he considered
perfidy on Jeff’s part.  Jeff well knew that the faction in Ashby D
had been running a campaign to harass Joe and the Ashby D Board for a
very long time.
Joe Sachs confronted Jeff about it, and to paraphrase Jeff Chester,
was told: I advise anyone, and personal feelings mean nothing to me.
We don’t believe you Jeff. Contrary to your claims of objectivity,
there is ample evidence that your advice is very strategic, and
calculated to achieve what you want.
These people, some of whom were former Board members, have been
determined, at whatever cost, to get themselves elected again.  All
very well you say, except that these people cannot get themselves
elected in the normal way. While formerly on the Board they had ample
opportunity to show what they were capable of.  Instead they have
chosen to malign the reputation of a popular Board whose president is Joe Sachs.

The residents of Ashby D have proved over and over that they prefer
the present Board over a board made up of the five rivals, one of whom
owns his unit, but prefers to live in another community.
So let’s go back to the rival group’s final question:

.” One cannot help but wonder why the incumbents resort to such
draconian
tactics to retain positions that are purely voluntary and without
material perks or compensation.”

Could the answer to this carefully crafted question be that Joe, well
aware of the past history on the Board of this group, simply wants to
protect the building from the kind of mean-spirited factionalism that
this group brings into the building?

Joe Sachs and his fellow board members won re-election through sheer
hard work, and a positive and cheerful attitude towards the challenges
he and the Board face every day. These are challenges which every
Board in the Village faces.  He has proved that he cares deeply about
every resident in his building, including the elderly and infirm, and
works hard for their welfare, as well as that of the building. They in
return have demonstrated that they appreciate it. Joe and his Board
won the last election by about 85% of the vote
The residents of Ashby D know that there are buildings in the Village,
less fortunate than themselves, who haven’t yet found a Board as
responsible and caring as Joe's

Joe is not unique in the Village. There are many like him, willing to
put their time, energy, and reputations on the line. Don’t ask them
why.  Most of them have often asked themselves the same question.
Particularly when facing the kind of insidious and malevolent attacks
which the perpetrators would want to pass off as legitimate criticism.

I will address the reasons that I believe motivated Jeff Chester to
post this “anonymous” attack on Joe Sachs In a later post. It appears
to be a campaign to discredit Joe Sachs, and prevent his effectiveness
as vice president of the council of Area Chairs, given the present
struggles for power in that body. They may hope to  prevent his
possible inclusion on the Nominating Committee..

There is also much more to be said about the repeat election in Ashby
D.

Wendy.