04/20/22 BOD MEETING: SYNOPSIS AND COMMENTARY BY VICKI ROBERTS
Posted April 27, 2022. Your Editor provides the following synopsis of the April 20, 2022 Board meeting with commentary and satire indicated inbold blue and pictures.
The Editor’s Opening Monologue and the synopsis and commentary are the property of Vicki Roberts, are my independent work product, and are not affiliated with the HOA. Redistribution or republication of licensed cartoons and images is strictly prohibited and may subject you to legal liability for copyright infringement. Bizarro cartoons are courtesy of Dan Piraro, www.Bizarro.com. Thank you, and you may now enjoy the show.
Editor’s Opening Monologue:
This edition is entitled “Dirty Pool” and “Where’s Democracy When You Need It?”
(including: destroying democracy in Cascade Lakes, trying to prohibit corrections of misstatements, new committee chairs, setting up, sabotaging, and bashing a Board member, possible slander of a resident, and other juicy stuff!)
Part I. Dirty Pool
Spring is in the air! So are gnats, mosquitoes, and other annoying pests (did I mention any Board members?).
This is also the season of allergies, including hay fever, sneezing, nose-dribbling, post-nasal drip, and other various and sundry things that cause histamine reactions. (Again, did I mention any Board members?)
Birds are mating, flowers are blooming, spores are spreading, and snowbirds are leaving.
It is also time for spring cleaning, which, depending on the level of hoarding you have engaged in over the course of the last year, will determine how long it will be until we see you again.
Anyway, besides gnats, mosquitoes, and allergens, springtime also breeds another type of pestilence, the one where the so-called leaders of this community engage in a game of Dirty Pool. For the uninitiated, that’s where they set up, sabotage, and then leave one of their members to be the fall guy for the issue du jour.
This was for a deed they wanted done but were too wimpy to do it themselves. But then they saw a better opportunity: let Arthur do it and then stab him in the back for doing their bidding. And it’s not even the Ides of March – we’re past that already. I guess every day is the Ides of March at Cascade Lakes.
The majority of the Board set up and sabotaged Arthur, a fellow Director, which then cascaded into some Board members and residents bashing him. Allow me to explain.
The Board went along with Arthur being the new Liaison to the Welcoming and Caring Committee, liked his new proposed co-Chairs, and were relieved that he was the guy advising Nancy Rowe that she would no longer be the Chair. If not, they certainly would have said so, since they’re never at a loss for words to criticize him. But they deliberately remained silent.
There were several reasons given as to why they didn’t want Nancy Rowe as the Chair anymore, including, she’s “pedantic,” “bossy,” and “it’s her way or the highway.” These are not my words, folks, so don’t shoot the messenger. Other comments included that that she talks incessantly, doesn’t return phone calls; previous committee people said they didn’t want to call her because they couldn’t get off the phone, among other things.
We were advised that they’ve been trying to get rid of Nancy Rowe as Chair of the Welcoming and Caring Committee for a very long time. I personally heard this a couple of years ago. Upon information and belief, people actually left the committee because they were fed up with her so-called leadership.
We were all held hostage at the September 1, 2021 Board meeting when she hijacked the meeting and spoke for 19 or 20 minutes, during which time, in unwelcoming and uncaring fashion, she bashed new residents: i.e., Arthur and yours truly, during an official Board meeting, with completely false statements and misstatements about us during her 19 or 20 minute diatribe, falsely blaming us for what she perceived were her committee’s failings.
We have the tape, and you can read all about it in our synopsis of that date, which is entitled, in part III, “This is Your Welcoming Committee?”
At that meeting, Nancy made several misstatements and untruths, falsely stating that this is an “unauthorized website,” falsely saying we engaged in “ill will,” falsely stating that new residents “don’t want to talk to us because they’re already being welcomed by an unauthorized group,” and falsely stating that we give out “a lot of misinformation.”
All of that is hogwash; it was made-up bovine poo poo.
And to state it at an official Board meeting was outrageously inappropriate, especially coming from the Chair of the Welcoming and Caring Committee. That was the opposite of welcoming and caring. That was completely disgusting. It was done to blame us for whatever frustrations she was having in interfacing with new residents or in the lack of organization and follow-through her committee may have been having.
One new resident told us that he ran into one of the members of the Welcoming and Caring Committee, and he told that person that he hadn’t heard from anyone in the six months he was here, and he was told they were very busy and they would get to him. They never did.
I have been advised that they’re livid that we send out welcome cards to new residents, among other things. The claim that that is “their territory” is irrational. The HOA is not the Borg for those of you who watched Star Trek, The Next Generation. This HOA is not a “collective we” that has the exclusivity on welcoming new neighbors.
The belief is that we should wait for them to welcome the new people first. This is absurd: first, no one knows when or if they will get to that (see comments from new resident above), and one has nothing to do with the other.
Under this theory, no resident can send another resident a card: welcoming, get well, or sympathy. Just forget it. That’s their job and don’t you dare express kindness. They have first dibs on that, if and when they get to it, and they’re not going to tell you when that is. You have to sit in your house and hope the ethers will bring you vibes of when it gets done.
And under no circumstances should you bring over a blueberry pie or homemade soup or offer to help in any way. You contact the Welcoming and Caring Committee and rely on them. Talk about control, this is crazy town stuff.
Upon information and belief, Nancy was/is also peddling the petition to remove Arthur as a director, and the reasons being given to people in urging them to sign it are flat out lies. We have been told the reasons by residents, and every single reason given is provably false.
Making false statements about Arthur and me has never bothered these petition peddlers. They thrive on it. We’re a threat to their elitism and their power structure. They are telling residents lies to get them to sign the petition.
The first lie is that Arthur was disruptive at the Organizational Meeting. This is false: Harvey and Ron Capitena of FirstService Residential constantly interrupted Arthur; he interrupted no one. Play the tape.
The second lie is that we sued the HOA and cost the HOA legal fees. That never happened; the opposite is true. First, various Board members (Marion, Harvey, Jeff) spent your money on the HOA lawyers trying to shut us down (this website). They were thwarted by something they didn’t expect; it just came out of left field. It’s called the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. They just didn’t see it coming.
Then they tried to shake us down (overcharge us for PBB’s negligence in failing to flag the irrigation lines before an approved dig resulting in severed lines and then attempting to gouge us for the repairs). They spent $2,750 on legal bills over a $190 dispute (see October 20, 2021 synopsis entitled “The Lawyer and the Shakedown”).
So, the entire premise for the petition is false on both counts. These petition peddlers are flat out dishonest. They’re not interested in Arthur’s contributions that have already saved the HOA money; they’re interested in maintaining their power structure at all costs.
And this was going on before Nancy Rowe knew that Arthur was going to be the Liaison to the Welcoming and Caring Committee, and we had no idea that she was a petition peddler until we were told this two days after the Board meeting, on Friday evening, April 22, 2022.
As an aside, one of the more active petition peddlers is Jackie Deckinger, a woman neither Arthur nor I have ever met or ever spoken to. She’s been active around the pool circulating it, and has also been going to people’s homes, trying to get people to sign it, presumably with false statements because there are no valid grounds from a factual standpoint.
Now back to the story. The Board packet with the new co-Chairs was sealed days before the April 20th Board meeting. I wasn’t going to mention any of this, but since these Board members want to play dirty, so be it. I am not going to sit here silently while this type of dirty pool plays out before our very eyes. It’s ugly, but it’s the ugly truth.
So, suddenly at the meeting, Jeff made a motion to knock out Arthur’s new choices for co-Chair of that committee and he moved to reinstate Nancy as Chair; they voted in typical fashion: the Gang of Five, who clearly were in on this set up and sabotage in advance, voted to do that, and Arthur and Sue opposed. So, the wonderful new Co-Chairs were no more. This was a complete and total surprise to Arthur and Sue.
The Gang of Five gave no heed to these two wonderful Co-Chairs listed on the spreadsheet they were supposedly all fine with; they were given no respect, no head’s up, nothing. They just unceremoniously threw them under the bus.
They were given complete disrespect and short shrift. The Gang of Five essentially gave them the one finger salute. Those lovely residents didn’t deserve that; no one does. That was disgusting and low class, and extremely unwelcoming and uncaring.
This was a set-up, and it was done deliberately to make Arthur the fall guy and to embarrass him and to further enrage certain vocal members of the community in the hopes that the failing petition to remove Arthur as a Director would gain some steam.
This Gang of Wimps had Arthur do their dirty work and then turned around and stabbed him in the back after he had the courage and the balls to do it for them.
Remember that early 1970’s group called the O’Jays? They had a big hit back in 1972 called “The Backstabbers.” The first stanza is:
“(What they do!) (They smile in your face) All the time they want to take your place,The back stabbers (back stabbers)”
Now, here’s the rub: Before the meeting, the Gang of Five secretly decided to remove the Co-Chairs from the Welcoming and Caring Committee and replace them with Nancy Rowe, the former Chair. Both Arthur and Jeff had motions to approve Chairs and others.
Jeff’s motion, just like Arthur’s motion, also had the new Co-Chairs for that committee, and specifically not Nancy. That’s in the original finalized Board packet, in writing.
At the meeting, contrary to his own written spreadsheet in the final Board packet, Jeff moved to replace the co-chairs with Ms. Rowe, and the Gang of Five approved that amendment, contrary to the agreed-upon Board packet sealed days before the meeting.
Query: why did Jeff’s motion originally have the new co-Chairs listed and not Nancy Rowe?
Answer: because they all wanted Nancy Rowe out; but then they hatched this plan to make Arthur the fall guy and made the surprise motion live, during the Board meeting, to switch them out and put in Nancy Rowe to try and rile everyone up against Arthur. It’s the old “bait and switch” routine played out in real time right before your eyes.
However, they continually forget the one thing I learned in a continuing education class a number of years ago: “The Editor always gets the last word.”
So, I am saying it loudly and clearly: they did this deliberately, they did it for nefarious purposes, and it was completely premeditated. They wanted her out; they got him to do it, Jeff’s spreadsheet in Jeff’s motion listed the two new co-Chairs, not Nancy, and then they moved to put in Nancy Rowe at the meeting to try and embarrass and weaken Arthur. It was a total set-up.
Arthur was neither embarrassed nor weakened; this little episode is an embarrassment to them, and it actually weakens them now that the truth is exposed. Arthur was angry at what they did to you, the residents, with this little stunt.
This harms you because this shows you the type of character of these individuals who are running this place. If they’ll engage in dirty pool once, they’ll do it more than once. And believe me, this isn’t their first rodeo, but if you’ve been reading my synopses, you already know that.
So, the take-away from all of this is that Jeff’s spreadsheet attached to Jeff’s motion had the new co-Chairs listed, not Nancy Rowe. And every single Board member knew it and had a copy of it days before the meeting. So don’t let anyone tell you that they didn’t want Nancy out, because the written documentation proves otherwise.
They also knew there would be pushback, and they received some emails in the days before the meeting, and they knew there would be people speaking at the podium, but at no time did they change the spreadsheet attached to Jeff’s motion when they had ample opportunity to do so before the meeting. That’s because they wanted it to go down the way it did.
And don’t let them tell you that they had to have the other co-Chairs listed on Jeff’s motion, because he changed other things on that spreadsheet on his own without consulting all Board members, including removing the legal advisory group and adding contact people to the other advisory groups and the Grievance Committee. He had total control of his own spreadsheet, and the other four members of the Gang of Five were in perfect unison.
In the middle of the Board meeting, Jeff suddenly asked Arthur if he wanted to reconsider his selection and reinstate Nancy Rowe as Chair. But this was something he was reading from a pre-prepared piece of paper (see the tape starting at 1:18:38). So, this was clearly planned well in advance.
Part of what Jeff read from the paper he was holding was the following language: “after you’ve heard all the feedback in support of Nancy Rowe…” How could he have heard the feedback before the Board meeting? How could Jeff have even known that before the Board meeting? That’s impossible, because the Board meeting had not yet occurred when he wrote what he was reading from. See the set-up?
Now, in other news…
There were other things stated in the meeting by certain Board members bashing me personally, a resident to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, and they were more than ok with doing that, too.
Let me explain another reality: I get to criticize them because they owe a fiduciary duty to me. However, I do not owe a fiduciary duty to them, so their bashing of a resident whom they represent is wholly inappropriate at a Board meeting. And what was stated about me and about this website was also not true. I will address those comments as they appear in the meeting below.
The rest of the meeting was again divided lopsidedly with the Gang of Five voting one way on most of the agenda items and Arthur and Sue voting the opposite.
Richard raised his voice while bashing your Editor with a potentially slanderous statement as discussed in the report below. He seemed very angry; he could barely contain himself.
Harvey yelled out in frustration that this website is a conflict of interest with the HOA’s website, which is absurd. Perhaps he doesn’t like the fact that I’m letting you all know what he’s doing in his position of power because this site provides the checks and balances that he loathes.
Harvey claimed at this Board meeting that you residents don’t have the right to know what is on any agenda; he literally claimed that the statute only requires that the Board give notice of the meeting, and nothing more.
He wants you to believe that you’re not entitled to know anything. And why is that? Pure, unadulterated power and control is the name of the game.
He also invoked the name of Ron Capitena, the misinformed former boss of the property manager, who is neither legally trained nor possessing of any ascertainable knowledge on the subject, for support of this ludicrous claim.
Tell me, how can you provide meaningful input at the First Residents’ Input Session if you don’t know what’s on the agenda? You can’t. And Harvey’s reference to the statute conveniently didn’t mention the pertinent part of the statute that requires notice of agenda items:
Florida Statute 720.303(2)(b) states in pertinent part:
“The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items.”
The phrase “with reference to all designated items” means the agenda. Here is a Board member who is so drunk with power that he will state at an open board meeting with substantial certainty and an air of faux confidence that the statute doesn’t require something that it clearly does.
If he can’t understand the basic principle that the notice for the board meeting must include the agenda, he is proving himself to be unfit for the position he holds. Folks, we only have to put up with this pompous mule relative for one more year; after that, please, just vote him out. Enough is enough with this self-righteous schmendrick.
(For the uninitiated, schmendick is slang and means a foolish, bumbling, or incompetent person. It’s Yiddish, a language rich in descriptive words starting with “sch” and meaning basically the same thing. I’ve counted several in my head in the thirty seconds it took me to write this paragraph -- Schmeckel, schmuck, schlemiel, schlemazzle… you get the idea.)
Violating Florida statutes has never been problematic for some members of the Board. Because there is no effective enforcement mechanism, we are left to rely on their “consciences” and their “ethics.” If you find those things for some of them, please let me know, because they appear to be missing.
Here is an email your Editor received from a resident after the meeting and is an example of the feedback we are getting from residents:
“My blood pressure must be going through the roof, as I listen to the board meeting going on now. There obviously a majority alliance of 5 who will vote against anything that Arthur and/or Sue Schmer propose. Arthur is so well informed and presenting issues that are doomed before even being stated. I think that the alliance of five needs to be recalled!”
These sentiments mirror others we are getting. Remember, three of these Board members are up for re-election next March: Jeff, Harvey, and Bob. Let’s see who else has the courage to step up to the plate and into the lion’s den; it’s long past time to clean house at the top.
Otherwise, expect more Dirty Pool from this Gang of Five, and I will continue to report it; it’s the least I can do in service to the community!
And finally, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity of letting you all know the following:
The person who came in last place in the 2021 elections here, and lost by a landslide, the one and only Marion Weil, one of the biggest rule-breakers of them all, was appointed as Chair of the Rules & Regulations Committee by director Pat Nast, the Liaison to that committee, who herself doesn’t want to follow Robert’s Rules.
Marion sent an email to your Editor, a 40-year veteran attorney, appellate practitioner, and former Judge Pro Tem, late Friday night, April 22, 2022, stating that I was not chosen for the Rules & Regs Committee.
Well, of course I wasn’t! Honestly, I would have been completely knocked off my chair if she decided to actually do something helpful for this community, as opposed to, in my opinion and the opinion of others, the usual self-serving acts of a megalomaniac.
Why on earth would these people want an expert in Rules & Regs as part of their committee? They don’t. It’s the same reason the Gang of Five put Pat in charge of this committee and took director Sue off the committee, the latter of whom wrote many of the Rules & Regs and is clearly most qualified.
It’s the consolidation of their power at your expense. They feel totally threatened because they don’t want to be exposed for their incompetence and thereby lose the power that feeds their needy egos. And that’s why your Editor is hated. Director Arthur presents the same challenges to their fragile egos, and that’s why he’s hated. It’s not complicated at all.
This is just more of the same harmful behavior toward the entire community. They hate you. They don’t only hate me. They don’t only hate Arthur. They hate you, the residents of this community, because if they didn’t, they wouldn’t take all these odious actions against you. And if it’s not hate, then at the very least it’s a total lack of respect for you. They’re more interested in their elitism and power than any of you.
Other than character assassination and false statements made against Arthur and your Editor, they have nothing. And their obsessive focus on us means less focus on you and what’s in the best interests of the community. This is the epitome of misplaced priorities.
I expose all of this because it’s the right thing to do. I see it, I know it, and I have the courage to do it. In my June 1971 Elementary School graduation book, my mother, who is also an original resident here, wrote: “May you have the vision to see, the knowledge to know, and the courage to do what is right at all times.” So, folks, it’s her fault.
Now to all you wonderful residents and neighbors, thank you as always for your continued loyal readership. Here’s how it all went down.
Board Meeting: Audio and Video Up and Running; live Board meeting and simultaneous Zoom meeting online started at 9:30am.
Board Members Present: (in alphabetical order)
Arthur Andelson (Equal Board member) [Your Editor’s husband]
Bob Dingee (EqualBoard member)
Jeff D. Green (Equal Board member)
Richard Greene (Equal Board member)
Harvey Ginsberg (Equal Board member)
Pat Nast (Equal Board member)
Sue Schmer (EqualBoard member)
[Editor’s note: I’m no longer indicating the officer positions because some Board members don’t understand that that does not confer upon them greater status and they don’t understand that all Board members are equal. Their officer duties are strictlyministerial and administrative in nature. As such, they’re not germane to anything relevant here.]
Call to Order: Jeff D. Green.
Pledge of Allegiance: led by Bob Dingee.
[Editor’s note: Jeff said Harvey is going to time all residents on his computer and let you know when your three minutes to speak are up. He then made the below statement which I fully support (finally). Now just enforce it.]
Jeff: No clapping, applauding, or booing at any time or you might be asked to leave.
[Editor’s note: later in the meeting he failed to enforce his own edict.]
First Residents’ Input Session:
If you have a question or comment, raise your hand please.
1.Resident #1: [Editor’s note: Baseless bashing of a Board member will not be reported. If you have a legitimate criticism that is based on actual facts, as opposed to zero facts or the manipulation of the facts, I will print it. Otherwise, this News Site will not help promote false narratives; therefore, I move on to the next resident.]
2.Resident #2: [Editor’s note: same comments as Resident #1.]
3.Resident #3: [Editor’s note: this resident didn’t understand how a liaison “could arbitrarily make changes” to a Chairperson. This statement makes no sense. Until the new Chair is appointed, there is no Chair. There is an acting Chair from the previous year but no official Chair.]
4. Roz Owitz: [Editor’s note: Roz mentioned the disaster over the weekend with the mass tree removal being done by Palm Beach Broward Landscaping (PBB), and Hotwire’s cables being severed, over the holiday weekend. Apparently, there were about 40 homes affected. She said it was disgusting what they did.
She addressed Sue personally and asked her questions because she knew she would get an honest answer from Sue. Sue didn’t know they were doing it over the holiday. Roz then laid into Harvey: “I’m out for you, you know.” Harvey is the newly appointed liaison to the Landscaping Committee. So presumably, he knew. And if he didn’t, why not?
Jeff said that was not on the agenda and that she could speak about that at the second residents’ input session. Roz refused, stating she might be dead by then. We hope not! We love you, Roz!
She then referenced something she overheard Jeff say to some friends of his previously, where Jeff referred to Arthur as “him with the dirty white shirt” which was really a reference to the moustache and words “Roving Reporter” on Arthur’s white shirt he used to wear for tennis and pickleball before he was on the Board. So, she essentially reported that Jeff was talking smack about Arthur to others, and she overheard it and didn’t like it.]
5. Rosalie Gold: [regarding the chairperson issue of the welcoming and caring committee; she praised Nancy Rowe and then made the following statements] “…why and who put this ridiculous situation in motion? I think there should be transparency. I want to know. It didn’t fly from the air on somebody’s lap; it was thought about; it was executed.
I want to know, who did this? Who said, ‘let’s do this.’ Whose idea, please, please, come clean as to whose idea it was and why did it go this far.”
[Editor’s note: thank you! Very acute observation, Rosalie. How right you are. Yes, indeed, right on the money. It went down the way it was reported in the Editor’s Opening Monologue. Not surprisingly, not one Board member answered her questions because the fix was in and they knew they were setting up Arthur to be the fall guy.]
6. Paul Friedlander: “I’d like the Board to focus a little bit on the process of choosing the chairperson of the committees… The Board determines who the chairperson is… the Board has to be involved in the process… This disruption clearly could have been avoided if the Board was more involved up front.”
[Editor’s note: not when it was planned in a premeditated way to sandbag and sabotage a fellow Board member; they did plan it up front.]
7.Resident #7: [Editor’s note: same comments as Resident #1.]
8. Jerry Dinerman: “I’m Jerry Dinerman and I live at 5300 Grey Birch Lane. I have been a resident of Cascade Lakes for 21 years. In addition, I have been a Board member for six years. In addition, I have been a Director of our Homeowner’s Association for six years, and served as multiple officers, including Secretary.
During my tenure I gave a copy of Robert’s Rules of Order to every board member and have given a copy to every secretary since then when asked.
There was never any question, whatsoever, whether we, the Board, used Robert’s Rules. No board member ever questioned our use of Robert’s Rules. The fact is, we did use them in running our board meetings.
This is very evident from the fact that board members, our current V.P. among them, frequently raised points of order and points of information. This comes directly from Robert’s Rules.
For any board member to now say that “Robert’s Rules of Order are not used by the Board” is a totally untrue and incorrect statement.
I would suggest that the board now formally move to accept Robert’s Rules of Order as being used in running all official meetings of the HOA.”
[Editor’s note: as you shall see below, Arthur’s motion to use Robert’s Rules was voted down: Arthur and Sue voted for the motion, and The Gang of Five (Jeff, Harvey, Richard, Pat, and Bob) voted against it, so it failed. The feedback we received on this was enormous with every single person voicing outrage over what the Gang of Five did, as detailed below.]
Approval of Minutes: April 8, 2022 Board meeting: Pat Nast
Pat: Motion to approve the Minutes of the April 8, 2022 Board meeting. Jeff: seconded by Bob. All in favor? Unanimous.
Treasurer’s Report: Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: the report is self-explanatory and was provided with the notice of the meeting and the agenda. Jeff seconded the report and it was approved unanimously.]
Property Manager’s Report:
Deborah: …mow…25th and 26th.
[Editor’s report: Deborah apologized on behalf of herself, the Board, and PBB for the tree removal on Good Friday, and stated that she did not know they were working on Saturday. She said they broke the manhole covers and PBB is taking full responsibility for the severed Hotwire lines. She invited residents to bring all concerns via a work order to the office.]
1. Fitness Center: [Editor’s note: Linda Bennis re-read the report from the April 8, 2022 Board meeting. Also, she stated that there was a difficulty with first responders accessing the back room because the cardio machines were in the way. Residents had to physically remove four of them so the emergency personnel could get through on one recent occasion.
She asked that the Engineering and Safety & Security Committees collaborate with the Fitness Center to present a workable solution to this safety issue.]
2. Welcoming and Caring: [Editor’s note: a report about the two ice cream parties to welcome new residents from 2019 through 2022 was made by acting Chair Nancy Rowe. Your Editor was an attendee of the second party, and it was quite lovely, and I enjoyed it very much. I give it an A.
I did hear anecdotally from several unrelated individuals that the first party two days earlier was not nearly as successful and there were complaints at the enormous amount of time Ms. Rowe spoke and her presentation in general. Don’t shoot the messenger here.]
Part II.Where’s Democracy When You Need It?
1. Motion to Follow Robert’s Rules – Arthur Andelson
[Editor’s note: as stated previously, Arthur’s motion to use Robert’s Rules was voted down: Arthur and Sue voted for the motion, and The Gang of Five (Jeff, Harvey, Richard, Pat, and Bob) voted against it, so it failed.
The feedback we received on this was enormous with every single person voicing outrage over what the Gang of Five did. Also see Jerry Dinerman’s comments in the First Resident Input Session above.]
Arthur: “I move that we follow the most current edition of Robert’s Rules for all Board meetings. Do I have a second?” [Sue seconded it.]
Arthur: “We must follow Robert’s Rules. That’s the orderly way a civilized democratic body operates. That’s been the way for almost 150 years since it was first written by U.S. Army Officer Henry Martyn Robert in 1876, and then amended over the years.
If it’s good enough for the rest of the western world, then I know it’s good enough for us. Also, we must all follow the rules, or we are left with chaos, and we will not have consistency and fairness. Changing the rules because some board members don’t want to follow the rules is nonsensical because any rules that are implemented will not be followed by some board members anyway.
The current addition of Robert’s Rules of parliamentary procedure covers any situation that may occur, whereas the motion presented by others is a one-page document to shut down debate and opposing views. It is the opposite of democracy and harms the community that we have a fiduciary and fiscal responsibility to serve.
Much is being made about the demand that there be no interruptions by Board members while another Board member is speaking. To date, I have never interrupted a Board member while they had the floor, whereas I have been interrupted many times. And at the last Board meeting on April 8th, in fact several of you Board members repeatedly interrupted another Board member while she was trying to speak.
So here we are, and I follow the rules, and you other Board members don’t like the rules, or you break the rules, so you want to eliminate the rules. This was particularly evident at the Organizational Meeting where both Ron Capitena of FirstService Residential and Harvey repeatedly interrupted me while I was trying to make a proper Point of Information. What they did was rude, outrageous, and wholly inappropriate.
And now you want to create new rules that I don’t believe you will be able to follow yourselves.
My concern is that whatever rules you vote on, those rules will not be applied consistently, evenly, and fairly. And for that reason, I believe the only way to ensure consistency and fairness is to follow Robert’s Rules.
Finally, during debate when a Board member makes a misrepresentation of the facts or a manipulation of the truth, another Board member must be allowed to correct the record before moving on to the next Board member.
So regardless of what you do here today, if any of you makes a material misstatement of fact or states a downright mistruth, I will call it out immediately because not to do so harms the community and would allow a false statement to be of record and could also be the basis of decisions made, and that can never be right and that can never be justified.”
“It should come as no surprise to anyone that I would support this, as I have been in favor of following the rules, have given rationale for why they are important, have written many of them , along with the members of the Rules and Regulations Committee, and have warned about the consequences of not following them:
Therefore, here are some reasons why I support this motion:
Robert’s Rules are used as the basic established parliamentary procedure by most all organizations when conducting business
The. basic tenets of Robert’s Rules are already being used – We put forth a motion which is seconded, discussion ensues and then voted upon.
Robert’s Rules already have a means by which to close debate when further discussion becomes unproductive. It requires a 2/3 vote of the bd. to do so. Existing procedures are not broken. We should not fix them..
There is no need for this radical change of process, and there is no valid reason to do so.”
Jeff: all in favor? [Arthur and Sue raised their hands.] All opposed? Five. The motion fails.
[Editor’s note: well, that was quick. The Gang of Five rejected, without even a comment by any of them, the following principles: reason, fairness, and following the rules.]
2. Proposal for Conducting Board Meetings – Pat Nast
[Editor’s note: in yet another move to destroy democracy at Cascade Lakes, welcome to the new Pat’s Rules of Order. These are rules for shutting down debate which are parading as rules supposedly to control Board conduct.
These rules are not workable and in part illegal under Florida law. They were also put in place under false pretenses. They also will result in keeping the community in the dark for the following reason.
Pat’s first rule states that, contrary to Florida statute 720.303, the Board can “adjust” things to the agenda at the Board meeting, without having given the community the required minimum 48 hours’ notice. So, the very first rule, which is an illegal power grab at the expense of the community, flat out breaks the law because adding items to the agenda without the minimum statutory notice is illegal.
This first rule harms the community because it prevents meaningful or any input from the community at the First Residents’ Input Session. The Gang of Five loved it. I guess they want to shut you all down, too: no opposing views allowed, and no comments or suggestions, especially from you lowly non-elitist members.
We can’t have that in Cascade Lakes. You just need to be quiet and pay your ever-rising quarterly dues, currently at $1,665.
Pat’s rules are supposedly to “rein in” Arthur and to a lesser extent, Sue, but they don’t need reining in, and in fact Arthur did not do any of the interrupting during Board meetings so the entire premise is faulty.
That distinction of King of Interruptions goes to Harvey, and also to Ron Capitena of FirstService Residential for his reprehensible conduct at the Board’s organizational meeting. Those two repeatedly interrupted Arthur, and Harvey regularly interrupts other Board members.
For the record, and you can play the tape of the March 24, 2022 Organizational Meeting to confirm this, Harvey and Ron engaged in multiple interruptions while Arthur was speaking and Arthur was only trying to state a Point of Information which he had every right to make and which is now non-existent under Pat’s Rules of Order.
So, to be clear: we had Robert’s Rules of Order from 1876 through April 20, 2022, and now we have Pat’s Rules of Order from April 20, 2022 going forward here at Cascade Lakes. I wonder if any other organization on the planet will adopt the newly minted Pat’s Rules of Order (asking for a couple of trembling friends in another HOA).
Really, because, by golly, if it’s good enough for Cascade Lakes then it’s good enough for Jeff to peddle at his next presidents’ club meeting, just like he did with his failed virtual guard push. And why stop there? Let’s get COBWRA to endorse it for their 110+ communities to cover over 140,000 residents.
Then we’ll move on to the county and state legislative bodies because, Lord knows, the people who live in the county and the state need to be reined in, too. And then on to Congress! Then we’ll approach the United Nations, and before long the entire planet will be silenced by the concentrated power of a few.
And remember, if you dare to object, their dutiful minions will come after you with a vengeance. So, object aloud at your own risk.
Pat, who clearly has no background in or knowledge of parliamentary procedure, promulgated this motion for the ostensible purpose of, among other things, stopping interruptions and lengthy debates. Harvey seconded the motion. The other members of the Gang of Five agreed once again in ovine unison.
Frankly, I think they’ve got the wrong petition circulating, or shall I say, the right petition, but wrong director(s) named therein. Anyway, I highly recommend you read Sue’s and Arthur’s complete comments below.]
“These rules that are being proposed seem to target the one Board member who did no interrupting at all, while the ones who are pushing for these rules were the very Board members who engaged in interruptions, both at the last and at the Organizational Meeting. Play the tapes. You will see that what I am saying is true.
There is no provision for an immediate means by which a director can interrupt another director if what is being said is erroneous, untruthful, or misleading. The reasons given for not including this are that it would interrupt the speaker and could lead to unnecessary debate and disruption to meetings. These reasons are specious and unacceptable.
Timing in life is everything. If you do not allow a director to immediately address the issue of misleading information, the point you are trying to make can get lost. I interrupted the chair at our organizational meeting by raising a then-acceptable Point of Order as he was stating misinformation.
Additionally, I should have raised an objection when one director refused to let another director complete his statement when it was stated that he just wanted to finish what he was saying and that he would relinquish the floor after that.
At the April 8th meeting, I interrupted the presiding officer when he didn’t admonish the audience not to applaud in support of a resident’s statement as it was disrespectful to the directors. I stated, “That shouldn’t be allowed,” but it happened several times thereafter, but it didn’t happen today; thank you, Jeff.
I interrupted a fellow director by stating “that is not true.” If I hadn’t said it immediately after the remark was made, my point would not be as relevant or easily understood. This is why we need a means by which to address misleading and untruthful statements.
It was acknowledged that interruptions of colleagues for misinformation have not been abused. For the past 20 years, Board members have interrupted their colleagues as part of parliamentary procedure. If it were problematic, then this issue would surely have been brought up before this meeting.
Again, I question its timing. Decision-making based upon what some people objected to at a meeting, and which may or may not have been a well-founded objection to being with, is in my judgment, not good policy. It is a disservice to the residents.
We certainly should not make rules that allow abuses, misstatements, and other errors to go unabated until much later when the point is lost and may not properly register with the listeners. As a matter of conscience, I cannot abide by this proposal. In addition, item number 1 is contrary to existing state law.
I will repeat what I said at the beginning. These rule changes that are being proposed seem to target at least one board member in an attempt to silence opposing viewpoints, Play the tapes of the organizational and April 8 meeting and you will see that what I am saying is true. That being said, why are we even discussing this?”
“Your first point states that the Board can add things to the agenda at the meeting. This is completely illegal. There is no way anyone on the Board or even the majority of the board can make an illegal vote to forgo giving the mandatory 48-hour notice to the members of our HOA.
Your second point states that each director, upon being recognized, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. There is no guarantee that the director will be recognized, so this is problematic.
Your third point states that no board member may interrupt the recognized speaker. However, when a misstatement or a mistruth is made, it is each and every director’s responsibility to call it out and to correct the record immediately when that misstatement or false statement is made. By not doing so at that moment, it harms the community when an uninformed or misguided board takes a vote based on a false premise, and that could cost the community unforeseen amounts of money in addition to creating a false record.
Your fourth point says that if a director needs clarification, he can raise his hand and wait to be recognized. The problem is that if he is not timely recognized, he will not get an opportunity to clarify or inquire about what is being said and voted on.
As to your fifth point, doing a round robin type procedure, which is what this motion proposes, and then asking permission to speak thereafter, actually hurts debate because that’s not a debate. All Board members must have the opportunity to rechallenge any statement given by a fellow Board member. Engaging in a majority vote to shut down another Board member’s right to challenge is limiting and is removing that board member’s independent fiduciary responsibly to the community.
Your sixth point forces a director to wait until discussion is closed before offering an amendment. This is a waste of time because the amendment may fix any problems with the motion or make it better, and that should be done up front, not after you’ve had one or more round robins.
This last point states that a director may make personal remarks for up to three minutes after opening remarks. There is no such thing as opening remarks in Robert’s Rules or even in our By-Laws, although I think you mean the presiding officer’s comments, and there really is no need for those. All he needs to do is state that proper notice was given per the statute. Anyone who wishes to have a point of privilege at any time during the meeting should be entitled to do so.
In conclusion, this attempt to stifle debate is reprehensible.
This proposal is illegal, it is breaching your fiduciary duties, and it is potentially fiscally irresponsible. It harms the community, and I will not collude and conspire with any of you to follow any procedure that is illegal and forces me to forgo my fiduciary and fiscal responsibilities. Why don’t you instead spend your time on matters that actually help the community, instead of devising illegal schemes to shut down debate among board members?”
[Editor’s note: notwithstanding that the Florida statute clearly requires notice for all agenda items, Pat’s proposal with the illegal Point #1 passed: the Gang of Five approved the new Pat’s Rules of Order.
Let’s see how long that lasts: do you really believe that Harvey is going to be able to refrain from interrupting? Rest assured, he will be allowed to do it, and if you’re a member of the Gang of Five, you will be allowed to interrupt as well.
This Gang of Five is a farcical and embarrassing joke and make no mistake about it: what they are doing is being done at the community’s expense. Meanwhile, Harvey, in his infinite wisdom, then decided that you all are not entitled to know what’s on the agenda.]
Harvey: I want to correct your statement regarding 48-hour notice. 720.303… notice of the meeting, it’s silent as to alterations for the agenda; therefore your point is moot.
[Editor’s note: Fool. As I cited to the statute in the Editor’s Opening Monologue, the statute specifically states:“The right to attend such meetings includes the right to speak at such meetings with reference to all designated items.” The phrase “with reference to all designated items” means the agenda. Otherwise, the sentence makes no sense.
FloridaHOALaw.com, which is actually Wetherington Hamilton Attorneys at Law in Florida, states to “Use parliamentary procedure…,” and “Follow the agenda, and set action items only.”
Sue cited from an article on FloridaHOALawyerBlog.com which I also looked up, and this is actually Siegfried/Rivera Law Firm, another Florida law firm. They state: “Use Robert’s Rules.” They also state: “Make the purpose of the meeting clear – Prepare an agenda that outlines the specific items that will be discussed. Be sure to be transparent about the topics.”
They also state: “Rather than have an open-ended agenda item that opens the floor to miscellaneous topics, allow owners to submit desired talking points, on the specified agenda items, in advance of the noticed meeting.” That is the opposite of what Deborah’s boss, Ron Capitena, suggested to Harvey, per Harvey, as you will read below, further showing his incompetence in this writer’s opinion.
So, the bottom line is that what the Gang of Five is doing is flat out wrong, misguided, and contrary to what Florida lawyers state, which is consistent with what your Editor and Arthur have been saying for a long time now. I Rest My Case and so does he.]
Pat: …As far as the records go, details do not go into the Minutes. It’s only the vote, so this really has no impact on records here.
[Editor’s note: Fool #2. One of the official records is the tape. The residents are entitled to know what is on the agenda and they are entitled to a fully informed Board before you vote. They are also entitled to know when one of you makes a misstatement of fact and that should be addressed immediately.
You clearly want chaos as opposed to Robert’s Rules. Chaos promotes the consolidation of power. Robert’s Rules is a checks and balances on unbridled abuses of power.
Sue then corrected Harvey; she reminded him that not giving 48-hour notice for all agenda items deprives the residents of their right to input before the vote. She stated that otherwise you don’t give the residents enough time to prepare to speak on agenda items, and those items must be listed “so people know what the heck we’re talking about.”]
Jeff: I have 720.303 in front of me… it says nothing in here about agenda items… [Editor’s note: perhaps a remedial reading class is in order as I just quoted from it above.] …this is a Board meeting, not a community meeting. There’s no notice that we have to send them the agenda…
[Editor’s note: Fool #3. Another one that doesn’t want you to know the business of the community and has no problem disregarding plain statutory language.]
Harvey: I’d like to relay a conversation with Ron Capitena regarding the agenda… his suggestion… add a standing agenda item “any and all other business” so we’re within our rights.
[Editor’s note: Fool #1 again relying on Fool #4, and then suggesting a work-around giving the residents no notice of actual agenda items. Why are they so desperately trying to keep you all in the dark?]
Arthur: “The notice has the agenda in it. That’s part of the notice. And that’s the reason for the first residents’ input. If you take items off the agenda, that’s ok. You can’t put things on the agenda without giving proper notice and information for the residents to share their input. That’s the purpose of it. And 48 hours’ notice is the emergency, shortest time available.
If there is a problem of safety or damages to the facilities, to mitigate the problem, the property manager has the right to protect the community, by shutting down the pool because somebody had an accident in the pool; or shutting down the clubhouse because of mold. That is the property manager’s responsibility, to mitigate the damages and to keep this community safe.
Then we send out a message to the community, we have 48 hours, a special meeting, post it up, and let them know why we’re having it, and then we get together and have the meeting. There’s nothing in between or nothing loosie-goosy about this. Thank you.”
Jeff: Thank you… All in favor [of Pat’s motion, which was seconded by Harvey]: 5. All opposed? Two. 5-2, it passes. [Arthur and Sue opposed; the Gang of Five were in favor of it.]
[Editor’s note: Many important items are still being ignored. Details are found on our page entitled“Agenda Items.”]
[Editor’s further note: there is no old business on the agenda this time.]
1. Committee Chairs, Advisory Groups, and Keeping Group Names Listed – Arthur Andelson
[Editor’s note: there were two versions submitted per the agenda: one by Arthur and one by Jeff. This is Arthur’s motion. Of course, the Gang of Five rejected it in favor of Jeff’s motion. Tally: for the motion: Arthur, Sue; against the motion: Jeff, Harvey, Richard, Pat, and Bob. It failed.]
“I move to accept the list I put in the Board packet, to continue to put the names of those in the advisory groups on the HOA website and in News & Views as has been done in the past, with not just one contact person listed for the groups or the Grievance Committee, to include the Legal Advisory Group, as was done in the most recent past, and no Board member can be a member of an advisory group because that’s a clear conflict of interest.
Do I have a second?” [Sue seconded it.]
“In previous emails to all Board members, I stated that I reviewed the 2 sheets listing committee chairs and liaisons, the one dated April 14 at 2:12 PM included legal advisory, while the one sent out at 4:26 didn’t. I asked that it be put back as I stated it was probably an inadvertent error.
I also pointed out that there was a discrepancy/inconsistency regarding the listing of webmasters. On the 2:12 pm email, webmasters was listed with none under board liaison and no committee chair. Yet on the 4:26 email, webmasters had 3 asterisks indicated, under board liaison it said contact person under committee chair, and only one name was listed.
The same situation also applied to grievance. I asked for an explanation and did not receive an answer to the questions I asked.
I sent another email on April 16 to the president which will synopsize.
1. I asked why the legal advisory group as not listed on the latest email as the group has not been disbanded and residents have signed up for it. However, on another motion to be made, it is listed has legal and not legal advisory.
This is unlike the listing for webmasters which does have contact person listed under board liaison with a person’s name indicated as committee chair. I do not understand the reasoning for this.
2. I asked for an explanation as to why the words contact person appeared on the later email and not the first one.
3. I also stated that I really didn’t understand how or why or by whom these changes were made and presented as a fait accompli, as I was certainly out of the loop on this one. I did not get a response.
Therefore, for the reasons just stated, I do not support the other motion, and I support this motion as it is fair, impartial and within the boundaries of established precedent.”
“I move to approve the list I presented in the Board packet. This is based on what we presented to the residents by way of sign-up sheets. Now you want to change that, and specifically eliminate the names of the webmasters and the legal group from listing on the HOA website and in News & Views. People were actively misled. And we all know why you want to do that. It’s so that my wife’s name doesn’t appear anywhere officially in connection with Cascade Lakes.
I’ll start with the legal advisory group. Vicki Roberts is the most qualified to review contracts for the benefit of all residents and almost everybody knows this. At the last Board meeting, Jeff stated that if we have a contract issue, we’ll just ask the person most qualified to do it.
Presumably, he was referring to Vicki, who is a seasoned litigator, a contracts expert, and a top negotiator available for free to potentially save our community hundreds of thousands of dollars and to protect us from bad contract clauses that could bite us in the ass down the road.
Vicki, however, has no interest in being this community’s back-alley mistress to be used in secret while others, including some of you on the Board, continue to bash her in public. What you are doing is the opposite of being honest, open, and transparent. This greatly harms the community.
Also, claiming that you will reach out privately to the contract specialist is secretive and nonsensical because there are seven Board members and any one of them has the right to reach out to this group. Even committee chairs who have legal questions about the proposals and contracts they are gathering should be able to reach out to the legal advisory group. Having to go to the HOA lawyer is unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible.
The next excuse was that there are no Florida attorneys in the community. This never bothered you before when Paul Friedlander and other non-Florida lawyers were in the group, and when Paul was the committee Chair when it was a committee and listed on the HOA website and in News & Views. Now suddenly it’s an issue.
You would rather spend HOA money on lawyers than use the great legal minds you have right under your noses. I find this political gaming to be contrary to your fiscal and fiduciary responsibilities to the community. My spreadsheet includes this group, especially because it was never voted on to be removed to begin with and you advertised it to the community with your sign-up sheets.
If you choose otherwise, you are sending a loud message that your hatred toward a resident is more important than what is in the best interests of the community. That hatred is based on your anger because your egos are threatened by the truth she writes.
As to the webmasters, the same issues apply. I will address those as well as Harvey’s complete conflict of interest after you vote down this motion and discuss the one presented by Jeff.”
[Editor’s note: you all know how this went down. The Gang of Five rejected it and Arthur and Sue supported it; hence, it failed. But not before Harvey and Richard each put their two cents in.
Harvey had a tantrum and made a personal attack against a resident, and also made a false statement. Harvey lost his temper and shouted a false statement about your Editor and this website; he also claimed it was not a conflict for him to be a webmaster and on the Board at the same time.
He falsely stated that Arthur’s wife (your Editor) has a “conflict” to be a webmaster because she is “is running a competing website…where she frequently bashes the board and how this community is run. Therefore, I think that’s glaring conflict of interest.” This is not a competing website. That’s absurd.
This website has never claimed to be official, so how can there be a conflict if this website is unofficial? What is a conflict is this: an official Board member also being an official webmaster, because he gets to review his own decisions. That’s a glaring conflict of interest.
The conflict is Harvey being a webmaster and a board member at the same time, getting to adjudicate his own rulings. That’s like a lower court trial judge then running to the court of appeal, appointing himself as an appellate justice, and determining whether or not his ruling at the lower trial court level was proper. I’m not sure if this is a question of stupidity, arrogance, or both, but it cannot be justified under any circumstances.
He stated he would recuse himself if there were a conflict, but that’s ridiculous because every single message board post that is discussed for removal would be subject to this “double dipping” that he would be engaging in, i.e., determining its writer’s fate (violation and/or discipline) and then determining again if his decision on its writer’s fate was appropriate or not.
My website, to the contrary, is not affiliated with the HOA and every single synopsis says so at the top of the document, pursuant to an informal agreement with the Board that they would stop discounting this News Site at public Board meetings (see synopsis of November 3, 2021 under the heading “Punches and CounterPunches.”). Harvey just broke that agreement.
In addition, this website has never claimed to be an official HOA site. Never. This was a fake claim made by Harvey to deflect from the real issue which is that he is hopelessly conflicted by his being a board member and a webmaster at the same time. You can be one or the other, but not both. You don’t get to adjudicate the appropriateness or lack thereof of your own rulings.
Finally, as to his recusal, the mere fact that he is on the Board renders his participation as a webmaster ethically problematic. A board member is part of a hierarchy. Advisory groups, which the webmasters are, advise the Board. This means he would be advising himself. That’s obviously ridiculous and it is inconceivable that this would be deemed ethically appropriate under any circumstances.
Then Richard chimed in to attack your Editor and addressed Arthur personally. He made an outrageous outburst intimating your Editor’s lack of legal competence without any basis whatsoever. But first he made a truly bizarre statement.
Richard: “You’re attacking us individually and saying that we’re jealous.”
[Arthur never made such a statement and neither have I, but it’s nice to know your true feelings, so thanks for letting everyone know. We both personally had no idea that you and others are jealous, so this was a total surprise. It certainly never came up in any of our private conversations so this truly was news to us.]
Richard: “Here’s what I’d like to do. I want to speak to you personally, because we did have your wife review a contract. And we had a number of questions on it.” [Editor’s note: none posed to me; I parsed it line by line with my comments in red and was never thereafter contacted except by Jeff who thanked me for my thoroughness and promptness.]
Richard: “I would like to discuss it with you before you list her as an expert in Florida law, please do not say that again” [Arthur never did; that’s a complete lie; he said I was a contract expert; he never, ever, ever said that I was “an expert in Florida law”] “because otherwise I’m going to bring forth what I saw.” [Editor’s note: What you saw? Are you a legal expert? What on earth are you talking about other than clearly suggesting something defamatory?]
[Editor’s further note: Arthur was not allowed to respond, but this was a direct threat to another Board member based on a false premise.
After the Board meeting on April 20, 2022, Arthur sent an email to Richard which essentially demanded a public retraction of his potentially slanderous comment about your Editor. It was ignored.
There being no response, it can be inferred that the contents of the letter are true, and the statement made by Richard at the Board meeting is false and therefore potentially slanderous, made without evidence, and factually wrong.
It is clear that because Richard’s statement at the Board meeting had no basis in fact, it was just made-up drivel. This type of personal attack against a resident, with zero evidence to support it, is reprehensible and completely out of line.
Sue: [Sue commented on the previous issue of directors being a webmaster and noted that the website’s Terms of Service provide for appeal to the Board of Directors from an adverse violation notice from the webmasters.]
Sue: … “How can you appeal to the Board of Directors when one of the webmasters making the initial decision is also a Board member? As a webmaster you are making a decision that is reviewable by a higher authority – the Board, of which the webmaster is a member.
This is a conflict of interest and gives more power to a director. That, in my judgment, is not warranted or acceptable. And if that has been past practice, Harvey, then maybe we should listen to Jerry Dinerman and consider using Robert’s Rules which is what we’ve been using for 20 years.”
[Editor’s note: Harvey stated that the appeal should be to the grievance committee, not the Board, which is what happened with your Editor’s successful challenge to the webmaster’s violation notice last year.
In fact, the webmasters should have not imposed any discipline, should have referred the matter to the Board for determination of discipline, and then the aggrieved party would go to the Grievance Committee to challenge the Board’s imposition of discipline. That’s what the statute requires.]
Bob: Sitting here listening, I think this is digressing from the original motion; therefore, I’d like to move the motion.
[Jeff then called the original motion; Arthur and Sue voted for it and the Gang of Five voted against it, so naturally, it failed.]
2. Committee Chairs - Jeffrey Green
[Editor’s note: this version eliminates recognition of the legal advisory group on the HOA website and in News & Views and was done specifically to eliminate your Editor from recognition in those two media.
This version also lists a “contact person” for the other advisory groups. This is misleading, because for the webmasters, some Board members have repeatedly identified Mike Blackman as the “senior webmaster” in their words and based thereon, upon information and belief, conferred upon him veto power over who is in that group.
Again, this was done strictly to keep your Editor out of the group, notwithstanding my clear expertise in website content and management and experience in interpreting legal language such as that in the HOA website’s posted Terms of Service.
The excuse that they wanted an odd number of webmasters to “break a tie” if an issue arose as to a message board post is false; there were five who signed up for this group and in 2021 there were only four, so obviously this is bogus. And now we have Harvey making the false claim of a conflict when it is he who is the conflicted one. Notice how the excuses change?
Afterwards, Harvey added his name to make it an even number to knock out your Editor. He is in fact the last person listed on the sign-up sheet. But again, that is a total conflict of interest, because the webmasters are supposed to refer discipline to the Board, and Harvey is on the Board, which is a direct conflict of interest.
Harvey has no business voting as a webmaster on these matters which go to the Board for review per the Terms of Service, and then reviewing that same vote and voting on it again as a Board member. In my opinion and the opinion of others, that’s just unethical, plain and simple.
Jeff’s spreadsheet accompanying Jeff’s motion has two co-chairs listed for the Welcoming and Caring Committee. Neither one of them is Nancy Rowe.
Before the meeting, the Gang of Five secretly decided to remove the Co-Chairs from the Welcoming and Caring Committee and replace them with Nancy Rowe, the former Chair. Remember, this is Jeff’s motion, not Arthur’s. But he didn’t change his spreadsheet.
Jeff had the new Co-Chairs for that committee, not Nancy, listed on his spreadsheet accompanying his motion. Jeff’s spreadsheet was not updated prior to the meeting. So, Jeff was going to move to accept his spreadsheet with the two new Co-Chairs of that committee, at least until they hatched their little plan as described earlier.
As stated in the Editor’s Opening Monologue, Jeff suddenly asked Arthur if he wanted to reconsider his selection and reinstate Nancy Rowe as Chair. But this was something he was reading from a pre-prepared piece of paper (see the tape starting at 1:18:38). So, this was clearly planned well in advance and was a total set-up.
Part of what Jeff read from the paper he was holding was the following language: “after you’ve heard all the feedback in support of Nancy Rowe…” How could he have heard the feedback before the Board meeting? How could Jeff have even known that before the Board meeting? That’s impossible, because the Board meeting had not yet occurred when he wrote what he was reading from. See the set-up?
Arthur said no. Then Jeff stated that it’s “in the best interest of the community to keep Nancy Rowe.” He didn’t feel that way before. The audience clapped (what happened to the presiding officer’s obligation to control the small crowd as he stated in his Opening Remarks?). He then moved to accept his spreadsheet except for the two co-Chairs on his own spreadsheet and to replace those verbally with Nancy Rowe. Richard seconded.
Arthur: “if your motion passes, I request that you find another liaison...” Jeff: “you will resign? If my motion passes, you can do what you want… we’ll vote on it… at the next meeting. We’re not going to do that here in an open meeting right now.”
[Sue then commented on the Grievance Committee and the issue of the liaisons. She rightly pointed out that the Grievance Committee members have to be approved by the entire Board and requested that all the members be listed, not just the contact person. She also stated:]
Sue: “There is a process by which we choose committee chairs… the Liaisons chose the chairs. If there was an objection by any other director, this was supposed to have been addressed prior to the Board meeting. As there was no objection prior to the Board meeting, the lists presented as indicated should move forward.
The entire Board is responsible for approving all of the committee chairs… It has been past practice that the liaisons choose the committee chairs unless any director specifically says, ‘I don’t want this person,’ and expresses his or her viewpoint prior to the Board meeting to avoid controversy…”
[And there you have it, folks. This confirms that Jeff’s spreadsheet had the two new co-Chairs as well (of course, we also have his spreadsheet as part of the final Board packet which lists the new co-Chairs and specifically not Nancy Rowe, and we have other evidence as well).
Jeff moved to accept his spreadsheet except for the new co-Chairs and to verbally put in Nancy Rowe and it passed five to two: the Gang of Five voted for it; Arthur and Sue voted against it.]
Jeff: “You’re resigning, Arthur?” Arthur: “I’m thinking about it. I’ll let you know.” [Editor’s note: he’s not resigning.]
3. ARB Committee – Harvey Ginsberg
[Editor’s note: Harvey moved to accept Chair Shelly Andreas’ proposed Architectural Review Board’s membership list which includes Carl Bergman, Shari Bragas, Barry Gordon, Larry Jacobowitz, Steve Olitsky, Sy Schulemson, and Wanda Warshaw. Bob seconded the motion. It passed unanimously.]
4. Property Insurance – $67,610.45 - Richard Greene
[Editor’s note: as everyone knows, property insurance premiums have risen. They are waiting for possible additional quotes from the broker, but in the meantime, since the policy expires May 6th, the Board unanimously approved the quote they had.
Arthur did ask if we were getting all discounts possible considering the new roofs, and Richard said we received them last year and that our premium would have been $30,000 more. Sue thanked the insurance committee including Les Bennis, the Chair.]
Second Residents’ Input Session:
1. Judie Delman: [Editor’s note: Judie was upset that the residents on her street were never notified that all the common area trees were being pulled out. She reported the destruction, the Hotwire debacle, and that this was done on the holiday.
Deborah stated it would all be fixed to “the way it was prior.” Judie tried to speak again after the next resident spoke but was cut off because Jeff ordered her Zoom sound muted because she already had her three minutes to speak.
It occurs to me that all the time spent arguing back and forth with her about not letting her speak might have been longer than what she wanted to say to begin with, but we’ll never know for sure.]
2. Roberta Alter: [Editor’s note: Roberta suggested a different type of death notice to the community. She stated she has complained about this for two years and it affected her personally and she] “added a line to the webmasters that my husband was a past President and Editor of News & Views,and they took it out because they said it sounded like a eulogy. I think that’s disgraceful.
So, I would like to meet with the webmasters, show them the copy of what I have from the other community, and maybe the Board members can see what a beautiful way to let people know in the community that somebody has passed. Thank you.”
Jeff: “I will send that to all the Board members and the webmasters.” [Editor’s note: he never did; Arthur had to ask Roberta personally for it, she sent it to him, and he responded to her, thanking her, and agreed that it was beautiful. Your Editor saw it, and I concur.]
3. Larry Jacobowitz: [Editor’s note: this resident believed that the committee members picked the Chair. Sue already addressed this fallacy; it’s not true and it was not true for the last three years I’ve been here, and it wasn’t true this year either, for any of the committees.
He also importantly stated that if the liaison has some expertise, he “chimes in” and that was part of his function. That is absolutely correct.
Of course, Harvey and the Gang of Five believe otherwise, that no expertise or qualifications are required of a liaison. They only believe this, in my opinion, because they wanted to knock out Sue and Arthur from the liaisonships in which they were most qualified and put themselves in their stead.]
4. Jack Lippman: “I’ve been here since the beginning. In the absence of following Robert’s Rules, I wonder what structural basis the Board is following and conducting its meetings. I think there might have been advantages, there are disadvantages even, to using Robert’s Rules, which resulted perhaps in delays sometimes, but isn’t it a matter of throwing the baby out with the bath water when you don’t adopt Robert’s Rules? Thank you.”
[Editor’s note: Per the tape, several Board members clearly appeared preoccupied and not paying attention during Jack’s speech: Bob was writing on his pad, Pat was fidgeting with something at her feet, possibly her briefcase, Harvey was looking at something on his computer, and Jeff was looking at what was on Harvey’s computer. The only ones who appeared to be listening were Arthur, property manager Deborah, Richard, and Sue.]
5. Steve Schlosser: Announce the committee chairs. Aren’t you supposed to announce it? Jeff: It will be announced in News & Views. Some of these Chairs haven’t even been told yet. It will be on the website.
Round Table Discussion:
Sue: Failure to follow the procedures that we have regarding liaisons choosing their own chairs is exceedingly problematic for me.
Bob: I agree with the motion from last June about working with the committees. [Editor’s note: he’s referring to the protocols already in place and which are actually on the HOA website.]
[The rest of the directors declined to make any final comments.]
Jeff: Motion to adjourn? Harvey. Second: Sue. All in favor? Seven to zero. [adjourned at 11:11am.]
[Editor’s note: A big shout-out to the tech people that make it possible to hear the Board meeting and to watch online for those unwilling or unable to attend in person. Per Jeff, they are: Mike Blackman, Mike Deckinger, Arnie Green, and Anita Goodman. We thank them for their continued service and volunteerism.]
And so concludes the Board meeting of April 20, 2022; next meeting: May 18, 2022 at 7:00pm. Note that it is an evening Board meeting next time!
Thought for the Day:
I never worry about what others think of me. I have a lot of great friends!
1. Don’t forget to join the community on the Cascade Lakes Boynton Beach Facebook Page, a place where you can interact and communicate! Click here: