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

Published June 28, 2011

For many years the question "Who lobbies for whose interest?" is still left unanswered. Considering the results of the last two legislative sessions, it has become very obvious that the two law firm lobbyist groups CAN (Community Advocacy Network -- Katzman Garfinkel & Berger) and CALL (Community Association Leadership Lobby -- Becker & Poliakoff) are definitely not lobbying for the owners living in Florida's community associations. Even their claim to be lobbying for the ASSOCIATIONS is either false -- or their success-rate is about ZERO. 

No matter how you twist and turn it, both community association bills that passed in the last two years -- S1196 (2010) and H1195 (2011) are anything but association/owner-friendly. Make no mistake, the claim that they lobby for associations is in reality as well absolutely incorrect. In reality -- who are the "ASSOCIATIONS"? Aren't "associations" really the owners who are still paying dues? They are the ones paying the bills -- and they are paying for the shortcomings of a system that forces them to pay for all the bills, including the legal bills.
  
CAN recently held its Legislative Roundtable 2011. Nice informative meeting, good presentations -- well done (you can watch it on YOU TUBE) -- nothing wrong with that. 

But it seems many folks don't really listen carefully, because in her opening speech Donna Berger made it very clear who CAN is really lobbying for: "We, the attorneys...!"

I don't think anybody can argue against the fact that attorneys and associations/owners have opposing interests. Imagine we would have well-functioning, peaceful communities. Guess what, a wide majority of these lawyers would have to look for other jobs. Make no mistake, the financial crisis in Florida's community associations created a boom for these specialized attorneys. And while the attorneys are making more and more money, the still-paying owners in these community associations are getting poorer and poorer, because they joined a system that forces them to pay for neighbors who stopped paying their share -- for whatever reasons. It is a system well-promoted by these specialized attorneys, who are all members of the CAI (Community Associations Institute), the national trade organization for association service providers.

I have to give CAN a break, because their initial bill for the 2011 legislative session, filed by Representative George Moraitis (H1195) and Senator Jeremy Ring (S1516), had many very owner-friendly provisions. But that's where the owner-friendliness stopped. 

Totally opposite the bill pushed by CALL. This bill -- S530 filed by Senator Mike Fasano -- was bad from starters and contained no owner-friendly provisions, just a few BREADCRUMBS for the owners.

But when the session started, most of the good provisions in H1195 were quickly removed and replaced with all the horrible stuff contained in S530. CALL couldn't even find a house sponsor willing to put his name next to such a horrible bill. And that is where CAN failed the associations/owners. Immediately at the moment when the folks from CAN realized that most of the owner-friendly provisions were removed from their bill, while it was loaded with all the bad stuff, they should have told their bill sponsor to pull the bill. CCFJ did it twice, at one time minutes before the final vote on the House floor, when we realized that the bad parts of the bill would by far outweigh the good parts. Even a First Grader can tell you that getting a handful of good stuff in exchange for a truckload of manure dumped on your doorstep is really bad business. 

But actually, the CAN main executives -- the attorneys -- had absolutely no reason to complain, or even ask the sponsor to pull the bill. Suddenly the bill was loaded with great money-makers for attorneys -- provisions pitting owners against owners and more provisions that needed attorneys in order to be enforced. 

And that is exactly the moment when everybody has to admit that association/owners and attorneys have opposing interests.

So much said, isn't it plainly wrong if attorneys use associations/owners and their numbers, money and resources to lobby for bills that are actually detrimental for owners?
  
But let's talk about another bill that will definitely have a huge impact on community associations: Property Insurance Bill S 408. I think it's a horrible bill -- a bill that will raise property insurance premiums and will make living in Florida even less attractive. Here I agree with some very outspoken members of CAN. But since we are talking about LOBBYING, let's ask us: Who is more honest?  I can assure you that the insurance industry used its own money and resources to lobby for this bill. They didn't use associations’ and owners’ money and resources to lobby for their bill. No questions asked, they fought for their own agenda -- and succeeded.

As much as I may dislike the business methods of insurance companies here in Florida, I as well dislike the methods of attorneys that try to make up for the shortcomings of the community association system they promoted and that makes them rich. 

For example: If the community association system I promote doesn't work - and owners in community associations are getting restless -- with no legislative solution in sight or being really lobbied for --  would I send out a letter to board members saying in short: If you have financial problems caused by unpaid dues and foreclosures, just sue your property insurance company. They have the money -- even if the financial shortcomings in associations are not really their fault. 

I don't think so, because where I come from we would seek damages from the person/industry that caused the problem. We wouldn’t try to get money from the insurance industry, just because it is conveniently there and it has deep pockets.  In turn, this action and reaction will increase the insurance premiums.

But that's exactly what Donna Berger (CAN) did. In a DISPATCH sent out to her network and published on the CAN website, she more or less invited association boards to file lawsuits against insurance companies if the association was having financial problems caused by a shortage of dues' collections. Here is the opening sentence of this DISPATCH: "If your community is struggling today to meet its financial obligations in light of a growing number of delinquencies, it might be time to revisit the issue of any storm damage that may have impacted you several years ago." How much more obvious can it get?

And this is where I see the difference in honesty. Even if I don't agree with the methods used in Tallahassee to lobby for bills, I still think that everybody -- and every industry -- has the right to lobby for its own advantage. But I think it's dishonest if I tell folks that I will lobby for their interests, when I'm  actually lobbying for my own gain -- to the detriment of the people I claim to represent.

In conclusion my take on the question: 

WHO LOBBIES FOR WHOSE INTEREST?

Honestly, I'm not 100% sure. But I know as a fact that it is wrong for attorney lobbying groups to claim that they are lobbying for associations/owners. Actually, I think that statement contains a serious conflict of interest. You can't claim to lobby for two different groups, if you can find the interests of these groups on opposing sides of the fence.

Would you join a lobbying group run by FORD which claims to protect Ford buyers against lemons?