Article Courtesy of The Margate News

By Mitchell Pellecchia

Published March 10, 2013

It’s a daunting task. Convincing over half of the homeowners in your community that something is amiss with your homeowners association (HOA) board. Some will slam the door in your face, others will call you names. You’re faced with an uphill battle where rumors and aspersions are the weapon of choice and the opposition will do everything in its power to convince the community that you’re misguided in your mission.
    

Similar to HOAs fractured by leadership attrition, poor member turnout at meetings and a lack of communication among board members and their constituents, the PG III community is divided. It is run largely by legal counsel retained to advise the Board - not homeowners, and is governed by the state’s 720 Statutes, a labyrinth of laws that while protect homeowners from rogue leadership, stack the deck in favor of boards in matters of association rulemaking and litigation.

In PG III’s case, three of nine board members have organized a recall against the other six. For weeks they knocked on doors, handed out literature and organized meetings at their clubhouse. Ron Travia, board member and recall organizer, told MargateNews.net that he and others have been left out of the decision making loop by board executives. The president and vice president of the association have been meeting via email without a legitimate quorum present, he said, and making decisions with the board attorney without consulting others.

“It’s illegal, Travia said. “There’s nothing in the 720s that allows these two to have meetings over email and it’s definitely not in our covenants. They’re circumventing rules and regulations for their own agenda. We need to get rid of these six and start fresh.” With regards to the other four of six, said Travia, they vote alongside and support the misfeasance of board executives and are up for recall as well.

President of the association, Phil Beracha, said accusations made by Travia are baseless. No email meetings took place and the Board never restricted homeowner speak at meetings. Beracha said Travia and others have intimidated homeowners into thinking something’s wrong.

“The allegations are false. They got everyone revved up, using all the buzzwords…legal fees, spending. I would sign the recall too if someone scared me into it,” Beracha told MargateNews.net.

Unique to PG III is the community’s recent revitalization of covenants, required by Florida law when HOAs let access to home titles lapse after 30 years. The community revitalized back to its original 1971 covenants last year, then paid an attorney $5,300 to update the document. Homeowners in the community wanted to know where the work product was and why it wasn’t delivered within the 90 days specified after revitalization. One said the property management company can’t do their job without the document in place, while another expressed concern that in the absence of updated covenants the community would lose its ability to conduct homeowner interviews and enforce rules. “We need to do background checks. We need to know who is moving in next door,” shouted a homeowner.

At a meeting of the membership last week, PG III homeowners, one after the next, expressed disappointment with the board on a number of fronts. First, for allegedly restricting member speak at homeowners meetings. Property owners say they should be allowed to speak on any agenda item – not have to wait until the end of a meeting or expect to be abused by the board when disagreeing. “We’re not stupid, we need to talk to each other with respect,” said longtime resident Rosemary Tobia.

By introducing new policies on code of conduct and homeowner speak at meetings, Beracha told homeowners his intentions were to do that, but was dismissed by homeowners who said they weren’t included in crafting new rules. “It’s our community, not the boards. We need to have a say in what goes on here,” said resident Steve Simpson. “This isn’t a court of law. We’re homeowners.”

Second, since revitalization, the mortgage on the association clubhouse has been in limbo. The Board attorney has suggested a quitclaim deed to the association’s property management company to improve lending conditions, but it’s the first homeowners heard of it and were outraged by the concept.

“Have we shopped around for bids from lenders?” more than one asked. “Why would we want to deed our property over to a third party?”

Recall organizer and Board member, Dave Vola, said he didn’t think quitclaim was a good idea. It does nothing to limit association liability on the property nor does it sufficiently protect the association against third-party claims against the property. “It wasn’t anything the three of us came up with,” he said. “They don’t include us in their emails.”

The hundred or so homeowners at the meeting expressed concern over canceled homeowner meetings, improperly noticed meetings, special meetings and secret meetings of the board. They wanted to know if rumors about email communications were true and were insulted that the Vice President of the Association, John Donadio, wasn’t present to answer questions from homeowners about allegations against him. Donadio, say recallers, has been a center of selective enforcement in the community, has been subverting homeowner rights, violating 720s and acting surreptitiously in a manner inconsistent with community bylaws and covenants.

“John is home deathly ill with the flu and couldn’t attend the meeting,” Beracha told homeowners. They didn’t believe him, some saying Donadio “hung Beracha out to dry” at the meeting.

Another stickler for the hundred or so homeowners in attendance: the presence of the Board’s attorney, Jay Levine, who most saw and met for the first time. He attempted to bring order to the meeting that recall organizers say wasn’t the board’s meeting because it was improperly noticed. “This is a lot owners meeting,” said recall organizer and former HOA president, Ross Russell. “We’re here to ask questions and meet about the recall.”

Levine explained his relationship with the Board and his role as their attorney. He suggested the meeting was off to a rocky start and asked homeowners to be civil “not nasty,” he said. After fielding questions from homeowners, Levine admitted that both the community’s covenants and clubhouse mortgage was stalled, but as the Board’s attorney had done his job. Homeowner’s then suggested that Levine, as attorney to the Board, ensure the recall committee of three file the recall correctly. “Help the three get it right,” suggested PG III resident, Sue Banks.

Most in the room were in agreement with the recall, but some remained on the fence. One said without a set of priorities drawn up by the community a new board won’t be any better than the last. Another suggested that not all six on the recall list were rogue and that too many personal vendettas were in play among board members - evident in the way one accused the other of wrong doings having nothing to do with business at hand.

Joyce Bryan, 14 years in PG III and former Margate city commission candidate, said she’s tired of what’s going on in the community and “Whatever happens we need to get passed it,” she said. “This is the second time board members have been recalled in two years. We must move forward. I want the best for this community and so do you,” she told homeowners.

Elsa Sanchez, a two year resident in the neighborhood, recited almost three pages of a speech she prepared in which she questioned the board’s relationship with their attorney, implying it was too cozy. Sanchez said she has attended the majority of homeowners meetings and is disappointed with the way neighbors are treated.

Still others, including Beracha, said there would be no reason for a recall if more people attended meetings regularly, ran for seats on the board and took the time to vote in association elections.

“If everybody comes to the meetings… we won’t have this problem anymore,” said former PG III board member, Rusty Garret, who stepped down once himself for alleged racial slurs while in office. “I stepped down because even if one person didn’t want me on the board, I didn’t want to be on the board,” said Garret, who apologized again to the community for his remarks.

Garret hopes board members in recall will step down voluntarily, if not, the recall could go to arbitration, which would cost the community more in legal fees.

Beracha told MargateNews.net he expects recall efforts to result in arbitration. He said it’s likely that six of nine board members will find the recall defective in some way and strike it down. If board members accept the recall, they have five business days to surrender association property and documents in their possession. If they don’t, they have five business days to file a petition with the state for binding arbitration.

“The reason we have this board is because nobody turns out to vote. This is the first time I’ve seen this many people at a meeting since I’ve lived here,” PG III homeowner Betty Royer told MargateNews.net.

After collecting 188 signatures, more than needed to recall board members per state statute, Travia told MargateNews.net the recall committee will be serving the board this week. “We’re just waiting for a few more,” he said.