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

Published December 21, 2009

Once upon a time the PARK PLACE AT THE LAKES CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. in West Palm Beach had a president, who, according to information from owners, could only be removed from office by recall. Owners further report that they are trying to sort out the mess he left behind. Attorneys and accountants are busy trying to sort through the maze of what seems to be financial misappropriations. Oh, by the way, the unit of this former president is in foreclosure. According to court filings, he didn't pay his maintenance dues for quite some years!

But he didn't miss a beat. As soon as his name was removed from the annual business report of the Park Place at the Lakes Condominium, his name showed up as the president of the FLAGLER POINTE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION OF WPB, INC.  And it looks like he is playing about the same game as he did in his former office.

I am talking about JOSEPH HERMES, former board president of the Park Place at the Lakes Condominium, in the moment still board president of the Flagler Pointe Condominium.

Owners of the Flagler Pointe Condominium had already tried last year to oust Joseph Hermes as their president. In the actual elections he came in as Number 6 out of 6 candidates, but with the help of the law firm of St. John, Core & Lemme P.A., using the excuse of an election formality, he stayed in office as the president. 

In a LETTER dated January 7, 2009 Theresa M. Lemme, wrote (quote): "...there was an error in the results announced at the annual meeting on December 19, 2008. After researching this issue and reviewing arbitration decisions and declaratory statements, we determined that there were not enough ballots cast to have a valid election. As such the incumbent board members remain in office pursuant to the Florida Condominium Act under what is referred to as the holdover doctrine."
  
But Theresa M. Lemme clearly failed to quote the cases she reviewed to come to that conclusion. Despite the fact that there were more ballots cast than required to overcome the 20% hurdle, quite a few of the ballots cast were "invalidated" for various reasons, leaving in the end not enough ballots to fulfill the requirements of FS 718.112(2)(d) 3 "at least 20 percent of the eligible voters must cast a ballot in order to have a valid election of members of the board."

Based on this letter, the letter just being a personal opinion of the attorney ("we determined"), the actual election results were overturned and Joseph Hermes stayed in office as the president.

The owners attempting to oust President Hermes are trying to do a better job at this year's election. 82 deeded owners (confirmed by property appraiser's list) signed a petition to have the Condo Ombudsman appoint an election monitor to conduct the annual election.

That obviously didn't go over too well with President Hermes: "Monitored elections? Where is this world coming to?"
   
The new association law firm Siegfried, Rivera, Lerner, de La Torre & Sobel, P.A. was contacted, obviously in order to find some flaws with this petition. Attorney Laura M. Manning-Hudson from the above law firm quickly obliged and found a few "excuses" to challenge the appointment of the election monitor.

In her LETTER dated December 8, 2009 she argues that (quote): "...the petition for Appointment of an Election Monitor filed on November 16, 2009 is fatally deficient, in that at least 29 of the units who signed the Petition do not have voting certificates on file with the Association, bringing the total amount of signatures below 15% of the entire membership."
 
Oh, by the way, the governing documents of the association are moot in regards to election issues, since Florida Statutes FS 718.112(2)(d) 8 was enacted in 2008, no longer allowing associations with more than 10 units to opt-out of the statutory election process.
  
Actually, Colleen Donahue, the Interim Condo Ombudsman, had more than just  "questions" regarding these statements. Her response in a LETTER dated December 15, 2009 was unmistakably clear (quote): "The law allows 15% of the ‘total voting interests’ of the condominium association to sign the petition for appointment of an election monitor. There is no requirement that the voting interest be the unit's ‘qualified voter’ or for the unit owner(s) to have otherwise filed a voting certificate with the association. 70 out of 82 signatures on the petition were validated against the unit owner roster. This number exceeds the 15% minimum, even for 407 units. Thus, I find that the petition is not fatally deficient as alleged by you."

But there is another flaw that was discovered in the election notice -- further delaying the scheduled election. No new election date is set as of today! Owners suspect that the flaw was created intentionally in order to avoid what President Hermes may feel is the INEVITABLE: His being ousted from the office of president.

Owners from both condominiums are comparing notes, hoping to show that their accusations about the financial shenanigans of "PRESIDENT" JOSEPH HERMES can finally be proven.

It is absolutely amazing how many sitting board members are willing to resort to legal election challenges and so-called flaws to stay in office. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being paid in legal fees each year to keep sitting board members in office, often against the will of a majority of association members. Recalls are challenged with frivolous arguments -- or in the hope that the arbitration section of the Division will invent some new rules favorable to the sitting board. 

Don't get me wrong, there are many good board members who volunteer their time for the benefit of the association. But there are as well many board members with "private agendas," who don't mind using little "tricks" and legal arguments -- right or wrong -- to challenge any attempt of the owners to hold fair impartial elections. Just see example above!

DO ASSOCIATION BOARD MEMBERS CONSIDER FAIR ELECTIONS A CURSE?