From: Spivey, Tony [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Public Recrods Request Pursuant to Chapter 119.07(4), Florida Statutes
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Bergemann:

Your request for minutes of the Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers was forwarded to my attention for review.   I am happy to respond to your request.  Please note that the minutes for the meetings held by the Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers are available on the department’s website at no cost to the public at http://www.myfloridalicense.com/dbpr/pro/cam/meetings_past.html.

The minutes do not specifically address decisions regarding applications for licensure or disciplinary action, because those functions are performed by the department, not the Council.  The comments by Ms. Harris were brought to my attention.  I have contacted the Division of Regulation and requested that all future correspondence properly set forth the department processes for issuing licenses and taking disciplinary action against community association manager licensees. 

If you decide that you still wish to have the department provide you copies of the Council’s minutes, please let me know the specific meeting date(s) you require, and the minutes will be copied and then billed to you accordingly.

Sincerely,

Anthony B. Spivey, DBA

Executive Director

Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers

From: Vaccaro, Tim [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Public Records Request Pursuant to Chapter 119.07(4), Florida Statutes
Importance: High

Dear Mr. Bergemann:

I have reviewed your original request to Sarah Wachman, Tony Spivey’s response and your most recent email below.  As Mr. Spivey correctly indicated, the Regulatory Council of Community Association Managers (RCCAM) has not approved any license applications or taken any disciplinary action against CAMs, because it does not have the authority to do so.  The meetings listed on our website were the only meetings conducted by the RCCAM.  There were no additional meetings addressing the issues you raise.  The RCCAM Council office has posted all meeting minutes from 2006 to the present, except for the minutes of its August 21, 2009 meeting, and the June 5, 2009 and July 31, 2009 minutes, which were reviewed by the RCCAM during its August 21 meeting.  The June 5 minutes will be posted shortly, and the RCCAM has requested updates to the July 31 minutes, which the RCCAM will review at its next meeting, along with the August 21 minutes.

As you state, Ms. Harris provided you a letter, which referred to a specific license application where she stated, “The council reviewed her application and it was approved."  Ms. Harris’ letter referred to the application process of our licensing boards, not the Council.  The information contained in that letter was not as clear as it could be, and Division of Regulation staff has received training regarding proper CAM licensing procedures.  The Division of Regulation also updated its letter to complainants in June 2008 to reflect proper department probable cause procedures for CAM complaints, a copy of which is attached.

I sincerely regret any confusion created by the department’s letter.  If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Tim Vaccaro

Director

Division of Professions

Dear Mr. Vaccaro,

As much as I understand that you are trying to explain this as an "innocent" mistake (Quote: “The letter was not as clear as it could be”), it sure is a lot more than that.

I received a letter with this explanation (see attachment) on 6-29-2009:
Quote: "If the regulatory board determines that probable cause exists, meaning they believe a violation has occurred, then 10 days later your case will become public record."

In my letters to Secretary Charles Drago dated 7-3-2009 (see attachment) and Freda Harris dated 7-9-2009 (see attachment) I complained about the misinformation contained in this letter and asked to correct this mistake. Most likely these letters were plainly ignored -- like many others sent to the Department by Florida 's citizens.

Until then I would have been willing to accept the explanation of unclear language and/or innocent mistake.

But it didn't stop Freda Harris from sending out these kinds of letters with these wrong explanations, knowing full well that these explanations are wrong. That's where it stopped being an innocent mistake.

Here is another example in an e-mail dated 8-20-2009:

However, the council may review applications on an individual basis and may issue a license to an individual who was previously found to practice without a proper license. In the case of Ms. Fitzgerald the council reviewed her application and it was approved."

The last sentence is absolutely clear -- no misunderstanding possible! It's a plain lie -- no excuses!

As much as I can understand that the DBPR wants the public to believe that these decisions are made by a Council that has two consumer advocates as council members at a public meeting, this is clearly an attempt to mislead and deceive the public. For years the DBPR has been flooded with complaints from consumers about the failure to regulate the CAMs. Consumers have a hard time to understand why CAMs with a long list of complaints filed against them still have licenses and are allowed to continue to violate Florida statutes.

Don't forget, these decisions are really made by DBPR employees behind closed doors. Most likely Florida ’s citizens would have even less understanding for the problem if they were told the truth!

We have seen many cases where complaints were not even properly investigated -- just closed without explanation without even considering the proof supplied or the witnesses questioned. CAMs are allowed to cheat, lie and defraud without having to fear any repercussions. Unlicensed people, who have violated the statutes over and over again, are given a license in order to continue their mischief under the protection of a license. These are proven facts!

If you want to correct your obvious mistakes, you should create some sort of public release explaining that the information contained in these letters was wrong -- and explain in detail how these complaints are handled -- and why people, who are caught working without a license and have clearly violated Florida law are given a license as "reward."

This deceptive practice has to stop. Florida 's citizens deserve better than being lied to by employees of a government agency that is in charge of professional regulation and conduct.

In fact, your failure to properly regulate the profession of community association managers devalues every license held by any honest and hard working CAM .

I'm looking forward to your response to my letter!

Warm Regards,

Jan Bergemann, President
Cyber Citizens For Justice, Inc.
http://www.ccfj.net/

http://www.ccfjedu.net