My Observations at the Board Elections

We were given the opportunity to meet the candidates for the Board. This included the three candidates of the ROC.

I learned that one of the ROC candidates has a dog, and a fellow candidate also has a dog. Two of the ROC candidates first met while walking their dogs. I also learned that this candidate had an issue of the speed bumps that were proposed for the BLMH. The speed bumps were never implemented.

This candidate acknowledged responsibility for posting the notices to all of the unit bulletin boards last year regarding fighting the alleged decision to ban pets at BLMH and the forthcoming assessment increase. I believe the candidate made a statement from the podium to justify the posting, which is in violation of "the rules and regulations" by describing a conversation with a fellow candidate who had cautioned this candidate about the rule violation. The candidate's response was something to the effect "that rule was stupid and so I posted the notices anyway." This candidate has made prior statements about being a long term, 22 year resident at BLMH. That means that this candidate is one who was present most of the years 1982 to 1998 and benefited from the very low and nearly ruinous assessments. So I can understand why this candidate would be upset about assessment increases and become a leader in a coalition to overthrow the board.

I was given the opportunity to ask one question of the candidates for the ROC. I had four pages of questions and it was difficult to choose. I also knew this was pointless. Proxy ballots had already been cast and with few unit owners in the room to hear any of this, what I or anyone on the floor or the podium said would have no influence on the election results. So much for a commitment to "open communications".

However, I used that one opportunity to direct one question to the candidate who was a 22 year resident and apparently the leader of the coalition. I asked about the statement that the ROC had made in their mailing several weeks ago about “the majority of us”. I asked if, at the time of the mailing “did the ROC have a majority”. I was not given a direct answer. Instead I was told that the ROC had members in 45 buildings. I pressed again “Did the ROC have a majority of UNIT OWNERS", and I gave the number of units that would be. I was finally given a partially straight answer, and that answer was to the effect "no". At that point, I knew that I and the other unit owners had been deceived. In my case, multiple times. So I pressed again “Then you deceived me in the mailing and in your letter of response!” I was not given an answer. I see this as an integrity issue. In a written letter to the ROC on September 11, I asked "I construe from your statements that you represent a majority.... 169 units....you have made certain statements and should be willing and able to back them up. If you don't I must conclude that some of the statements the ROC has made are false, and designed to deliberately mislead". I reiterated this several times in my letter. The written response "we make no exaggerated or false statements."

It is unfortunate that this election was based on deception. How many people voted for the ROC thinking they were voting for or with the “majority”? Was this a fraudulent election?

Whatever the election results, I have to say at this point, that this is not a good beginning. As I said in my comments written prior to the election “Honesty and the ability to manage are my greatest concerns about any of the board candidates.” This group has not been honest. In response to my questions they have repeatedly said "this was not about assessments" but in fact, this group was formed immediately after the budget meeting last year when, according to the leading candidate "angry people met in the street after the meeting". At the podium the candidate claimed responsibility for organizing the unit owners to attend and protest at the budget meeting. The material sent to all of us by the ROC stated in their FAQ that "none of the ROC candidates have had conflicts or disagreements with the current board." Literally that may be true; for the budget meeting, this candidate stirred up the owners who were then set upon the board. I guess that would be called a covert conflict on their part.

The ROC candidates do not at this point have my trust. If their candidates do win this election, they will have one year to get tangible results. I don’t mean improved color brochures or better xerographic copies. They will be evaluated first, on their ability to perform the "Powers and Duties of the Board of Directors, which each candidate signed. Second, in this case, they will also be evaluated on how they performed the duties and promises on the "ROC Slate of Objectives".

During the meeting, the current board president did not actually manage the meeting, but sat quietly while other board members fielded questions or dealt will issues from the floor. This was very unusual; it is my opinion the president was in resignation. For this reason the meeting was more unruly and less organized than most I have attended.

I will post the election results after they are made available.