CAM COMPLAINT: HOW ABOUT THIS TIMETABLE?

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

Published May 14, 2010 

 

What would you think if you read this timetable about the progress of a complaint filed against a licensed community association manager?

 

CASE NUMBER 2009-00-4214 (Judy White)
  • Date Complaint Received By DBPR: January 26, 2009
  • Telephone Interview Complainant Zuba (Report 8 lines long): March 2, 2009
  • Telephone Interview CAM White (Report 8 lines long): July 9, 2009
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: Sept. 16, 2009 
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: Oct. 16, 2009 
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: Nov. 16, 2009
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: Dec. 16, 2009 
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: January 15, 2010
  • Letter from DBPR to Complainant -- Investigation still pending: February 10, 2010
  • Case Officially Dismissed (Insufficient evidence): March 25, 2010
  • Letter Moore to CAM White: Case closed: March 25, 2010

 

After reading this timetable you would think: ‘Gee, that must have been a really complicated case -- lasting 14 months and requiring six (6) letters telling the complainant that the case is still under investigation.’

 

Wouldn't you be really disappointed if I tell you that the actual complaint was just short and sweet? Complainant alleged that CAM Judy White interfered with the election process by not allowing "delinquent" owners to vote [FS 720.305(3)]. But CAM Judy White allegedly allowed an owner of 101 lots to vote, despite this owner not paying dues according to the governing documents. No public board meeting took place where this decision was made.

When asking CAM during the election to follow FS 720.305(3), complainant was removed from the room where the election took place by a deputy hired by CAM Judy White without any approval at a board meeting.

Community association manager Judy White, working for LELAND MANAGEMENT, INC., used the so-called Nuremberg defense as excuse: "I violated the statutes by order of the board!" As we all know, it didn't work in Nuremberg , but it seemed to work with the DBPR. I was always under the impression that these well-paid CAMs are hired for their expertise, to help board members sort through the convoluted association rules and statutes -- not to assist board members in violating the laws.

The investigator conducted the two very short telephone interviews in March 2009 and July 2009. Then absolutely nothing happened for eight (8) months, until finally Assistant General Counsel Diane Marger Moore decided to close the case without a finding of probable cause. I guess the one-page investigative report made it necessary to ponder the decision for eight months and then come to the conclusion to close the file. 

And Florida's legislators wonder so why many citizens feel that CAM REGULATION is just a joke.

 

This case shows again how useless the DBPR really is!

OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!


NEWS PAGE HOME DYSFUNCTIONAL DBPR