First Residents’ Input Session:
[Editor’s note: no takers.]
Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2020 Board meeting: Linda Arbeit: Motion to approve the Minutes of December 2, 2020 budget meeting. Second: Harvey. Marion: all in favor? Unanimous.
Treasurer’s Report: Richard Greene. [Editor’s note: the report was attached to the notice of the Board meeting and is self-explanatory. Yosemite Sam did note that News & Views has “a lot of advertisers who have not paid” and the News & Views Committee “will talk about setting up a reserve for bad debts.”]
Property Manager’s Report: Deborah Balka: final mow… 22-23…Palm Beach Broward is off for the holidays 24-25 and 31-1…six unpaid quarterly dues at this time…happy holidays.
Facilities Committee Report:
[Editor’s note: as always, we thank Facilities Committee Chairwoman, Phyllis Martin-Hirsch, for providing her report via email to your Editor so that the entire community can benefit from the hard work of Phyllis and her Committee.]
“Benches for park area
The Board asked the Facilities Committee to find replacements for two broken benches in the park area. Initially, this appeared to be an easy fix, but it was not. I would like to recognize and thank several members of the Committee for their hard work and perseverance in their tireless efforts to accomplish this task: Mike Gentry, Linda Bennis and Chris Gavitt. We all have different taste but were able to very successfully work together in accomplishing this project.
The Board has received a packet with the results of our investigation. First, we were unable to find a local manufacturer of commercial benches so we used online catalogs from four different companies. After our best abilities at comparison we voted to recommend the Classic Park Bench, as detailed in your packet. A photo is included, indicating our color choices. Additionally, a sample of the slat in in the mail but we have not received it as yet.
We focused on comparing product appearance, cost, quality, shipping and return charges, and warranty. The costs in general appear to be very similar. We were unable to visit other communities due to the current Pandemic situation so we had to rely on photos and specs. I even stopped at several local parks to see what a commercial bench looked like in a park setting.
After discussion of all aspects of the purchase, the Committee voted to select the Classic Park Bench from The Bench Factory. It is manufactured with recycled plastic, as requested, and cost is in keeping with industry standards. With regard to installation, management will provide for the installation in-house.
**Footnote: the following was added orally by me.
- The proposed benches are a little more detailed and a positive upgrade
- The Board should wait to see the slat prior to making final decision
- The information has been presented. Now it is up to the Board to decide”
[Editor’s note: the following items are not on the Agenda but most certainly should be:
A. Banning clubs from having their own rules, policies, and by-laws: the pickleball club’s new rules allow non-resident interlopers full membership in the pickleball club with full voting rights and full access to the pickleball courts so that they can displace residents, so that they can wear and tear on community assets, and so that they can present liability claims to the HOA when they are injured on campus. No clubs should have anything more than an approved mission statement.
B. Road Resealing: this is a simple, inexpensive fix that would go a long way toward beautification of the neighborhood and sprucing up the look of the entire place. Frankly, it is long past the time for this matter to be addressed. Marion advised that this is a “repair and replacement” that does not require a community vote. She also stated in her December 16, 2020 opening remarks: “The Engineering Committee will be writing specifications for bids to repair and seal the roadways…” We will continue to monitor this.
C. Rescinding the illegal “Take Away Your Transponder If You Have An Estate Sale” vote. It is simply unacceptable that the Board would violate the Florida statute that specifically requires the allowance of ingress and egress by residents and owners. This is not a legal discipline that can be imposed. The maximum discipline after all other discipline has been imposed is a $1,000 fine and limiting access to common areas. Preventing ingress and egress by seizing transponders is not an allowable discipline, period. This needs to be addressed and rescinded.
D. Rescission of the improper banning of Alex from the community: Still not on the Agenda is a vote to rescind the banning of former handyman Alex from the community. Notwithstanding the fact that said ban is still the rule of the community, apparently, he is being allowed back in without restrictions (see the November 4, 2020 Synopsis and Commentary entitled False Pretenses and Go Ask Alex, The Sequel). This, in our opinion, is no way to run an organization, where some elite few are aware of the Board allowing Alex inside the gates and some are not; does that sound fair and transparent to you?
The next two matter are new updates to this list:
E. Improper use of HOA funds: Who authorized the $6,052.35 to go after your Editor and your Roving Reporter with no notice to most Board members and the community? And why exactly did Marion and one or two other Board members do that? We have never had a definitive answer to these questions, and the community deserves to know.
And who else was targeted without Board knowledge, without a Board vote, and without community knowledge? Let’s put this on the Agenda and find out. Marion states that all Board members approve attorney invoices. This is irrelevant, after the fact, and not the issue. There was never a proper Board vote to spend this money at any open Board meeting.
F. Improper expansion of Presidential powers: in our opinion, the motion to discontinue this illegal “policy” of permitting the president to have $1,000 per month in discretionary funds failed on December 2, 2020 because there are Directors on the Board who either don’t understand the rules and/or who don’t want to bust up the coalition which they have formed so as to solidify their power and ensure the implementation of their agendas. Sue and Eileen were the only Board members at the time who apparently understood that this is an unauthorized and improper grant to the president.
Keep in mind, Marion stated that this was voted on by multiple Boards, a statement in and of itself which is suspect, because if something is ruled upon affirmatively, it need not be ruled upon again, as it would already be the law of the land. So, we were very suspicious of Marion’s claim. A former Board Vice-President, Jerry Dinerman, who served on the Board for six years during the stated time period, also disputed Marion’s claim during one of the Residents’ Input Sessions.
It is unclear to us how a policy can continue that was purportedly never voted upon in the first instance. Marion stated that the policy dated back to a time period no earlier than 2012.
We then endeavored to seek review of all Minutes from January 1, 2012 forward. We offered a reward to anyone who could find any Minutes reflecting Marion’s claim that there were multiple Board votes authorizing a presidential monthly amount of either $500 or $1,000 during the time period Marion claimed was when said rule was voted upon multiple times by multiple Boards.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
On December 14, 2020, it was reported to us that an individual combed through all the Minutes from January 1, 2012 forward and purportedly found the only Board Minutes referencing the giving of a monthly amount and it was specifically for office expenses.
It was the Minutes of August 19, 2015, under New Business, item 3, as reported by the then-Secretary, Steven Olitsky, who submitted the Minutes but was absent from the meeting according to the Minutes. It states: “Office spending allocation raised from $500 to $1000.” These are the funds that the Property Manager has for use at her discretion for the benefit of the community. The implication is that the original $500 would likely have been authorized prior to January 1, 2012, a time period which was outside of the search parameters based on Marion’s stated timeline.
It was reported to us that there were no Minutes which were found by this individual, who we were apprised combed through all the Minutes from January 1, 2012 to the present, which authorized any monthly sums to the president. Arthur delivered the $10.00 Dunkin’ Donuts gift card for the benefit of that individual who undertook the time-consuming task, and we thank the individuals involved in that process.
Therefore, to permit a policy to continue that is not based on any rule or regulation or order is, in our opinion, an abuse of discretion on the part of the Board and wholly improper. It also sets a dangerous precedent that policies may be implemented without Board vote at the whim of a few and to the detriment of the owners/members of this community. The remedy is to keep placing this matter on the Agenda and identify it as an improper allocation to a Board member until this unauthorized power is stopped.]
1. Well pump – emergency repair for pool heaters - $1837.62 – Harvey Ginsberg. Evita: On December 8, the pump quit…lost the ability to heat the pool…two bids…HydroDynamics, emergency authorization $1,837…replaced…one-year warranty… as to parts…working. Propose we…ratify…Marion: we all approved it online, so we’re gonna ratify it…just for everyone’s information. Linda: well, Spring Oak. Marion: same one.
2. Rules for post State of Emergency – Linda Arbeit. Linda: Sue, Eileen, and myself got together…rules for when the emergency was lifted… for owners and permanent residents only… no guests or league play… until further notice… facial coverings… indoor common spaces…outdoor…when social distancing not possible… Sue: it’s six feet…reading all of it is not the best way to go. Linda: I’m gonna turn it over to you.
Sue: …we exist under emergency powers…masks, cleaning and disinfecting… areas of the ballroom…created possibilities for movies…same for the card and poker rooms, fitness center, arts and crafts room, sports center, bocce…will be known to the community as soon as possible… loss of privileges can include…restriction of use…violations, infractions …progressive…one week, two weeks, or four weeks…CDC guidelines are in effect...
Marion: under pool, #6, lounge chairs, should be grouped together only for permanent residents in the same household. Evita: suggestion…leave it to read…Sue: …’as amended’…Evita: …until pandemic is declared over by the CDC… Marion: Sue. Eileen: excuse me, Marion, I had my hand up first.
[Editor’s note: there Marion goes again, snubbing Eileen. We called out this pattern previously. Here we have it again.]
Eileen: …’as amended’…if need be, makes more sense to me… adding a lot of words that don’t need to be added… Sue: end it ‘as amended’…in this case, more words isn’t necessarily better… [Deborah raises her hand.] Marion: Deb. Deborah: …permanent residents only… for all of the rules… for use of the community areas… [discussion about wording back and forth] …Linda: motion. Evita: Second. Marion: all in favor of using this when the emergency orders are appealed? Unanimous. [we think she meant ‘repealed.’]
3. Utility Building Update – Change Order - $600 – Bob Dingee. Bob: came up as part of inspections… fire department dinged us… we need a step out the door… $600… Deborah: has been approved; I had Rich sign off on it; it’s been done. Marion: do we need a vote? Deborah: no, just for transparency.
[Editor’s note: the following items are not on the Agenda but most certainly should be:
A. Two incident reports: Discipline issues as to each: the Board should immediately place on the Agenda both alleged Election Day incidents and then conduct a proper review and decision by Board vote on each matter. This includes (1) the alleged throwing of a campaign sign at a resident which allegedly hit and injured said resident and (2) the removal of other campaign signs with the alleged assault “in your face” screaming by two residents against other residents (during the Covid pandemic of all times).
The HOA President, Marion Weil, purportedly violated Florida Statute 720.305 and the HOA governing documents specifically covering the issue of discipline, to wit, Rules & Regulations, Section E, Violation Guidelines, pages 4-16 and 4-17 when she allegedly illegally took the matter(s) into her own hands and allegedly improperly and irresponsibly meted out discipline without the knowledge of most Board members, without a required Board vote, and without the knowledge of the community at large. She should recuse herself from any further action on these matters.
B. All incident reports are to immediately go to all Board members: the Board should immediately place on the Agenda a directive to the property manager that any time an incident report is filed, it is to be immediately distributed to all Board members, not just the property manager’s Board liaison(s). Every single Board member must be apprised of the report; all Board members are equal. This will allow any Board member to place on the Agenda a discipline issue with regard to any alleged incident.
In connection with any and all incident reports, residents should make sure that each and every Board member receives the report, and should report all issues to each and every Board member. Reporting something solely to the president does a disservice to yourselves and at the same time disrespects every other Board member who is equal to the president. The office of the president is merely an office; it is separate and apart from a directorship. You owe it yourselves and to the community at large to report these incidents to each and every representative/director of this HOA.]
1 Park bench replacements –$797 + shipping - Eileen Olitsky. Eileen: …the Facilities…great group of Committee members that worked very hard, we really appreciate them…plain ones… a lot of maintenance…going with the plastic park bench… four foot bench in desert tan…two of those…motion…Richard: ordering from a catalog, cost of restocking, won’t be able to return it; we have to make sure that we’re getting what we want…want to make sure it’s solid…the ones at the bocce court, bending, almost a danger to sit on…has to be solid…we don’t want it buckling…
Phyllis Martin-Hirsch [Facilities Committee Chairwoman Extraordinaire]: comes in 4, 6, and 8 feet…I do agree with Richard…we don’t want to send anything back… maintenance, installation, that’s gonna be in house. Eileen: motion to accept subject to visual inspection of the slat… or table it… Deborah: there is one bench in the park at this time… Eileen: motion to accept this bid. The Bench Company, for two of them, size… Phyllis: originally, requested to look at the four-foot benches; more people to sit with six foot… I think four foot would be ok.
Deborah: three blank spaces where we took benches out…Eileen: a lot of people with dogs there. Excellent idea to get a trash can there [with two benches] … motion to accept the bid for two 4-foot benches subject to inspection of the slat. Sue: Second. Eileen: add to the motion tan benches…
Evita: this is a January expense. Richard: it doesn’t matter…will not receive it until January; doesn’t become an expense until we receive it… Marion: for social distancing, do we want a six-foot bench? Richard: Bob’s gonna help with the installation… Bob: I called the company…slats, hollow vs. solid…told me…solid… good material… maintenance man, installation won’t be that big a deal…plenty of room to put a bigger one in there… the bigger it is, the more it will start sagging… 5, 6, 7, 8 years from now…probably won’t, in the shade, not hot sun… Eileen: I walk my dog there…I don’t see that many people…never been crowded…
Phyllis: the six-foot one has a support bar in the middle…I think… Linda: what is the difference in price between 4 foot and 6 foot? Phyllis: about $200. Linda: I walk around the community… I see some people sitting on the benches on Cascade Lake Blvd… I’ve never seen anybody sitting on the benches in the Polly Park area… I don’t think it’s necessary to order a six-foot bench… [more discussion]… Sue: committees vis-à-vis the Board…Phyllis and her Committee have done an outstanding job…I believe we should not micromanage… inordinate amount of time on [small expenditures] and less time [on more]… it’s a replacement…
Eileen: here, here. I’m in full agreement…adjust the amendment. Motion to replace three benches, 4 foot in tan. Sue: Second. Marion: raises the amount. Deborah: am I still getting a trash receptacle? Eileen: I’d like to add that to the motion. Marion: will be about $1,500; we’re adding a third bench and a trash can. Deborah: the trash can is about $270. Richard: freight, $90 each bench, approximately $500 for each bench and waste basket. Marion: $1,800. All in favor of three benches in the tan color, 4 foot, and one trash can? Passes 6-1; Richard opposes.
2. Iguana Contract – Renew - $ 6800 – Eileen Olitsky. Eileen: we have a new iguana contract… renewal is up at the end of January; the contract is for $6,800… so far, we have 95 iguanas that were caught; comes out to about $72 for each iguana that was caught. Motion to sign another contract with them on condition that they come in the afternoon… They repopulate quickly… Second: Linda. Evita: most caught in the summer, May, June… $72 per iguana is a lot of money…I’m on the fence…
[Editor’s note: that’s pretty funny, Harvey aka Evita stating that he’s ‘on the fence.’ Did anyone else notice that reference? He wasn’t ‘on the fence’ when he tried to do an end run around the community vote to get a fence abutting his property using HOA money.]
Evita: …but in the long run, it’s probably worth…$6,800… [more discussion] … Evita: two other invasive reptile species; can this contract be amended… or does it include… one has an orange head, another…forked tongue.
[Editor’s note: oh, this is too rich, the fence reference, the forked tongue reference! This Board member may have a career in comedy once his days on the Board are over.]
Deborah: do you know what those are? Evita: I have to go back and research… just ask them… Deborah: iguanas? Evita: lizards, from South America… Deborah: I’ll ask if any other lizards are included.
[Editor’s note: we highly doubt it; the name of the company is Blue Iguana, not Blue Lizard.]
From Richard’s iPad (2) to Everyone: 10:24 AM“iguanas along canals are approaching back of homes Lake Worth drainage will not clear we have to clear with our own contactor”
[Editor’s note: upon information and belief, it was Richard Levy who commented in the Chat Function above.]
Marion: postpone until our first meeting in January. Deborah: [getting the new contract] I’ll request for the next meeting. Is that alright? Eileen: no, I’d like this motion…that’s a maybe…I don’t think this needs to be tabled… Marion: this is being postponed? Eileen: no, we’re voting on it, subject to…on condition that… I’d like to continue with the motion. Marion: motion, Eileen, second Linda. All in favor? Unanimous.
3. Pressure Washing – 2021 2X - $8800– Eileen Olitsky. Eileen: twice on the Boulevard, looking at… all the sidewalks… midway through the hurricane season, it’s so grimy and disgusting and a hazard, you can trip on the grime. Proposal to increase the pressure washing one more time for the year… Deborah: I would recommend doing it again… now and June and then December again… Eileen: usually the build-up comes in August…very unattractive… I would prefer… in November… hurricane season is over November 30…
Sue: $8,800 for Cascade Lakes Blvd. and all the sidewalks? Eileen: yes. Sue: contract for January 2021 including pressure washing on Cascade Lakes Blvd. only, May or June. Total cost $120,000; they list seven items; shouldn’t we itemize… what are we paying for… 2021 says only one pressure washing. I’m not clear… here’s the contract [holds it up] … not itemized…
Deborah: this is an additional pressure washing of the community sidewalks. Cascade Lakes [Blvd] sidewalk gets two pressure washes a year, usually around May, then December. The rest of the community only gets one now…$8,800 [is] how much to do all the sidewalks twice a year…Evita: note a third pressure wash of Cascade Lakes Blvd… Deborah: correct. … [more discussion] …
Sue: in the contract, January 2021, it only indicates one pressure wash in May/June… proposal contract 17194… Deborah: add on. Sue: how much for the 600 homes roof cleaning?... Deborah: $120,000 is the Eco-roof cleaning, 2021, including the pressure washing… [more discussion] …Sue: big contract, $120,000, not itemized, so I don’t know what the cost of the 600 is…
Richard: when they bill us, they bill us as they do each house… Eileen: two different things here; future contract has nothing to do with this motion. We’re adding an additional pressure wash for the community sidewalks. They make a lot more money when residents hire them… they’re benefiting as well.
Evita: I don’t know why we’re bickering. This contract has already been signed; we’re doing an addendum…Eileen: I don’t believe we’re bickering; somebody asked for clarification.
Marion: all in favor? Unanimous.
[Editor’s note: Sue seconded apparently at some point, but we don’t recall hearing that or hearing a formal motion either.]
4. PBB – Mulch - $6873 – Marion Weil. Marion: Mulch. You have the proposal…common area… $6,873… 1,740 bags of mulch; we have a credit for flowers and for two mows that never happened, $10,135, apply $6,873 to this proposal. So, the actual cost to this proposal will be zero.
[Editor’s note: say what? Can Marion’s math be that off, or is this another attempt to manipulate the facts? The cost of this proposal is not zero; it’s $6,873. It is most certainly not zero, unless suddenly Palm Beach Broward Landscaping has decided to work pro bono.]
Evita: $3,262 left. Marion: I propose at the cost of zero. Harvey, second.
[Editor’s note: this dynamic duo is at it again. They are both trying to snow you. She’s making a nonsensical motion that she claims costs you nothing and he’s seconding it. This is beyond the pale.]
Eileen: I seconded it.
[Editor’s note: ok, another snub at Eileen in the process, but no one should be seconding a fake zero-cost motion, because it’s not true.]
Marion: oh, Eileen was first, sorry, Harvey. Sue: not including the hedges on top of the berms. Marion: …rain…sprinkling…dirt and mud rolling down… All in favor? Unanimous.
Eileen: basically, we’re using a credit; it’s not really zero.
[Editor’s note: ah, finally, somebody woke up.]
Evita: using already been spent [money]. Sue: not it hasn’t been spent. Eileen: if Linda could revise that; it’s not free; using credit; a little more transparency about that… Linda: how much credit? [wake up, Linda.] Marion: $6,873 out of a credit of $10,135.
[Editor’s note: a Board member mentioned something to the effect that there was not a vote.]
From Me to Everyone: 10:42 AMYes she didshe said unanimous
Marion: Vicki, please don’t use the Chat; if use again, we’re gonna disable it. It’s only for the Resident Input Session.
[Editor’s note: no such admonition was given to the other resident who used the Chat function during the meeting as posted above (Richard Levy); and as you will see later, Evita moved to disable the Chat function notwithstanding the fact that Marion stated if it were used again, it would be disabled, and in fact it was not used again. Five Board members voted to disable the Chat function with Sue being the lone dissenter and Bob abstaining. Shame on the rest of the Board for squelching speech.]
5. PBB – Replacement of Oleanders - $4484 – Marion Weil. Marion: different colors throughout the community, 15 gallons, two in each area, then dark brown mulch. Harvey. Eileen: Harvey, I have a question. Many people walk their dogs; oleanders are not safe for dogs…want to make sure the scents don’t attract them…many people don’t know [they’re toxic] … safety for all pets… Marion: Harvey. Sue: I believe my hand was raised before Harvey.
[Editor’s note: here we go again. This time Sue is allegedly bypassed by Marion in favor of Harvey; earlier it was Eileen who was purportedly snubbed on two separate occasions during this meeting.]
Marion: no, I don’t believe so.
Evita: our By-laws require a leash, it’s up to the owner, just like toads, will kill the dogs… up to the owners. We can’t micromanage the community. It’s ridiculous that we’re talking about plants that are toxic to dogs. Sue: I looked it up…yesterdays, todays, and tomorrows… berries… toxic to dogs… my concern…shed, when the flowers and berries fall off, may fall off where dogs walk… and may even be toxic to humans…
Marion: recommended by the Palm Beach Broward who know how to care for them. Sue: Firespike, parts of the plant are dangerous… concern… if you are replanting…are these the right choices for a community of dog lovers… flowers shed, fall off… Marion: every flower sheds. Sue: it depends where they shed. Marion: that’s up to G-d. Sue: concerned…toxic to dogs…
Evita: with all due respect, you’re trying to micromanage the Landscaping Committee and Palm Beach Broward…we can’t micromanage the community.
Eileen: Harvey, I’m going to say this: one of the greatest micromanagers, respectfully, is you… we can’t always control what a dog is going to consume…it is way further responsible to not provide the risk to homeowners.
[Editor’s note: bravo.]
Richard: what about the actual homeowners who put these plants… Deborah: they are already. Richard: so, all we’re saying is putting it somewhere else. Marion: correct. Linda: is it possible to table this, go back to the Landscaping Committee and Palm Beah Broward to look for plants that are not harmful…we don’t want to offend, and we don’t want to hurt…revisit.
Marion: puts it into financial category of 2021.
[Editor’s note: didn’t Richard state above that the expenses are calculated when they are paid? So, this would be for 2021 anyway according to what he said, so this argument makes no sense.]
Marion: I’m the liaison to the Landscaping Committee, there are colorful plants, incredibly difficult to find plants that will flower and give color. Richard: then put a rule out, anyone can’t put these plants on their property…we’re doing basically the same thing…
[Editor’s note: no, you’re not; you’re doing it for the common areas which have nothing to do with a homeowner’s private property for which no one may enter absent permission.]
Sue: we control the common areas and individuals control their own areas… mixing apples and oranges… you can’t walk your dog on someone’s individual property… I’m not gonna vote on this; I feel this is a danger to dogs, especially when you can’t control where the flower and seeds drop. Marion: …you need to leash your dog and be careful where your dog walks…
Eileen: …every homeowner needs to know which ones are poisonous with a picture of it…Marion: ok, I can amend the motion…
Shelly Andreas [Landscaping Committee Chairwoman]: One simple question. For almost twenty years oleanders have been on Cascade Lakes Boulevard and if you can tell me that any dog has been hurt or killed… they are also toxic to dogs. There has never been an incident… do you want colorful or just sod… green… if those two plants are offensive to you, we can take them out… landscapers have worked with these plants in other areas… we have issue with watering… if you want to eliminate those two [Committee is ok with that].
Marion: approval of landscaping proposal 83-20 for plants, replace oleanders, $4,484, with a blast to the residents that two of the plants may be harmful to dogs. $3,262 credit, cost $1,222. Second? Linda. All in favor? 5-2. [Sue and Eileen opposed.]
[Editor’s note: once again, Marion makes a completely misleading statement. The cost is not $1,222. The cost is $4,484.]
Evita: “Marion… can I make a motion regarding the use of the Chat Function? Marion: yes. Evita: I would like to make the motion that we disable the Chat function between Resident Input Sessions for all meetings from now on because it’s continually being by certain people. Not everybody, but it’s very distracting. Marion: well, if we do that, Harvey, then people like Shelly who wanted to give her input couldn’t do that. Evita: she raised her hand. She didn’t use the Chat function; she raised her hand. Marion: ok, any, I’ll second that then. Any discussion? [Sue raises her hand.] Sue.”
Sue: “oh, boy. As a proponent of free speech, and you know how I feel about the Chat room because I told you. Sometimes there’s information that is given by residents that is helpful in our decision-making, as Shelly. Sometimes I read something, somebody said last week about something that was already in our documents about emergency powers.
I, as you know, I do not find the Chat room actually distracting because I can look down and I can read very quickly and look at all of you. I think it’s a question of not only free speech but people giving valuable information as Shelly did. And I am not an opponent of – a proponent of blanket cutting off of a Chat room that is an avenue that could possibly help us in our decision making.”
Richard: “My feeling is – I’m opposed – I agree with – we should turn it off. When we have, when we have these meetings in the clubhouse and we talk, we don’t let the residents suddenly stand up and disagree with us.”
[Editor’s note: note true, fellow residents; if they like you, they let you. It depends entirely on who you are. We have been to Board meetings in the clubhouse where audience members pop up and depending on who they are, they are allowed to interject. Bottom line: all residents, while created equal, are not treated equally, and we object.]
Richard: “If somebody has a question and wants to ask a question, we do have residents, we have residents’ comments sections, input sessions, that they can use, if they really have something to add. First of all, a lot of times I see a chat there that I know is completely wrong and I’m saying to myself, what the heck can I do about that. I don’t like chats going out because you don’t have an opportunity to respond to it.”
[Editor’s note: this last comment of Richard’s is patently false: your microphone is always on, Richard, and you have a mouth; you can respond at any time at your pleasure. You can respond verbally (which residents cannot do because their microphones are muted) and/or you can type in the Chat function.
You just want everyone to shut up and you’re not interested in what residents have to say and then you get hostile when they speak at the Residents’ Input Session where they challenge you and you insult them by claiming it’s just about their ego as you shamefully did with Jerry Dinerman at the last Board meeting. That’s how you got the nickname “Yosemite Sam.”]
Richard: “Second of all, as far as speech, or free speech is concerned, there’s limitations in free speech. You can’t run into a theatre yelling ‘Fire! Fire! Fire!’”
[Editor’s note: now suddenly he’s a lawyer, comparing yelling fire in a crowded theatre to typing in a chat room about a Board meeting; this is not only a nonsensical comparison but, in our opinion, downright dumb.]
Richard: “We are letting every resident have input. And they’re allowed to speak and if they have something to say, let’s all hear it. Let’s all see what they’re doing. I find it very distracting and I don’t think it’s a free speech comment because we’re not telling any resident that they can’t talk on an input session. All we’re doing is saying to a resident, you can’t talk while we’re talking. And I don’t see anything wrong with the proposal that Harvey put forward.”
Marion: “It’s not a matter of free speech as Harvey and Richard both said. It’s not a matter of free speech; it’s a matter of what 720 says.”
[Editor’s note: The Florida statutory scheme starting with 720, the HOA statutes, does not say one word about a Chat function in a Zoom meeting.]
Marion: “And 720 says the residents can have input in the input sessions.”
[Editor’s note: listen, fool, the statute provides the minimum you must provide to the residents, not the maximum. You have it backwards. And when I was at the podium speaking at a Residents’ Input Session, you, Marion, cut me off well before the statutory three minutes I had in which to speak as stated in my comments under your Opening Remarks.
So, the one time, according to you, Marion, that a resident is permitted to speak at a Board meeting, you illegally cut that resident off and you did so in a most physical and harassing manner; you approached me very aggressively and sought to physically grab the microphone away from me. And you then allowed and encouraged the residents to heckle me as you were engaged in this assault upon me. Again, you should thank your lucky stars that I did not file a police report because I certainly was well within my rights to do so.]
Marion: “not willy-nilly.”
[Editor’s note: the statutes do not say that. That is a false statement. The statutes do not limit the input, they merely dictate the minimum input. They say nothing about allowing input “willy-nilly” which, last we looked, is not a legal phrase in any event.]
Marion: “I find it very distracting. I don’t know about your screens, but when it comes up, sometimes it hides your faces, and I can’t see you. And sometimes I’ll miss pointing someone out or recognizing someone if they want to speak because I have this in the middle of my screen.”
[Editor’s note: the Chat function is to the right and does not interfere with the visuals of anyone’s faces, so we simply don’t believe Marion’s statement, and it also seems to us that the only time Marion allegedly misses pointing someone out or recognizing someone if they want to speak is if that someone is Sue or Eileen, and there was no chat happening on any of those multiple occasions.]
Marion: “Any other comment? Harvey.”
[Editor’s note: Harvey “Evita” Ginsberg is always seen by Marion to be called on or recognized to speak, so apparently the Chat function never hides his face.]
Evita: “yeah, just like Richard said, we won’t let anybody stand up in the middle of a -in person meeting, that’s interrupting, that’s rude, that’s the same thing as using the Chat. That’s why I made the proposal.” Marion: “any other last-minute comment? Ok, all those in favor of disabling the chats except for the input sessions, raise your hands. One, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? One. Bob?” Bob: “Abstain.” Marion: “ok, so motion passes four - no, five, one, one.”
[Editor’s note: Five Board members voted for the motion. Sue opposed. Bob abstained. Our take-away in general: Marion and Evita operate out of pure vindictiveness in our opinion. The others do not, but this decision, in our view, was a poor one.
This is just more shutting down of communication which exposes abuses of power and manipulations of the truth (lies). And if that does not work, Marion uses thousands of dollars of your money to intimidate anyone whom she believes is getting in her way or calls her out for her alleged malfeasance. Harvey aka Evita, in our opinion, latches on to Marion to maximize his control and power.