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

Published November 12, 2011

Not even the DBPR liked the expensive record request -- the bill for $245 and the circumstances under which this record inspection took place. Remember the inspection in the parking lot, described in a letter mailed by Bristol Management: "The warehouse does have electricity and a restroom.  I have arranged for an extension cord to be ran if you would like to bring a fan.  Space is very limited so there are no chairs and table set up.  We have folding chairs and a table that can be opened and set up just outside of the warehouse (due to the space availability)." (See pictures)

In an Information/Education Letter, mailed to the board of directors, c/o Bristol Management, Division Investigator Perret Cornelius-Morton wrote: "... the conditions under which access was granted such as requiring the inspection to be conducted outside in the parking lot subject to the elements was not conducive to meaningful access."

The DBPR also asked the management company to cancel the $245 charge. How often does it have to be repeated that there is no charge allowed for an inspection? Charges can only be levied if the person requesting the records wants COPIES -- you know, the printed kind?

In cases like this I clearly blame the management company for this record request gone south. Management firms are hired and paid to manage the daily business of the association, assisting the board members. A licensed CAM (Community Association Manager) should be fully aware of ALL the rules regarding record requests. 

And if these kinds of letters are written on the letterhead of the management company, the management company should get the blame for it -- not the board members who should have a reasonable expectation that the management company knows the rules and guidelines!

It is their job to know what's right or wrong!

EXPENSIVE REQUEST TO INSPECT RECORDS