CAN ATTORNEYS -- MASTERS OF DECEPTION? |
When criticizing the sincerity of the attorneys of the lobbying groups CAN (Community Advocacy Network -- lobbying group of Katzman Garfinkel & Berger) and CALL (Community Association Leadership Lobby -- lobbying group of Becker & Poliakoff) because of their claim to lobby FOR associations, it is my contention that they in reality lobby for their own pocketbooks. The bills pushed by these groups in the last two years -- and H319 in 2012 -- are outright proof of my contentions. The provisions in these bills surely increased the need for associations to hire attorneys, but actually did next to nothing for associations to deal with the ever-growing problem of budget deficits caused by unpaid dues and/or foreclosures. And make no mistake: The associations ARE the homeowners. That's why some are called HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS.
Since associations/owners and attorneys have clearly opposing interests, how can these attorneys effectively lobby FOR associations? Never forget, homeowners and condo owners would like to see most of their maintenance dues used for upkeep and beautification of their property, while attorneys love to obtain a big chunk of these fees. Wouldn't you agree that any nice and peaceful community must clearly be the nightmare for association attorneys?
It is just easy to understand that the relatively small numbers of association attorneys are looking for support lobbying for their own benefit when appearing before the legislators. What's easier than to claim that they lobby for all the associations that actually hired them for legal representation? Most of the owners in these associations don't even know what CAN or CALL really are, much less have they given them permission to "lobby" for them. Make no mistake; even if certain board members agree to join CAN and CALL, there are no deed restrictions in this world that entitle board members to enter such agreements. Even the DBPR declared in a Warning Letter that paying lobbying fees from association funds is a clear violation of Florida statutes.
Still not convinced that these attorneys are knowingly misleading the Florida legislators by making the false claim that they are actually lobbying for associations, not for their own benefit?
Here is a typical example for the deceit heaped upon our Florida legislators by these attorneys. The presentation made by attorney Scott Newsom to the Marion County Legislative Delegation on September 27, 2011 is a vivid example for such misleading statements. Scott Newsom is an attorney on the payroll of the law firm of Katzman Garfinkel & Berger, working out of their Maitland office. He is an attorney, not a registered lobbyist, and isn't listed in any capacity on the website of CAN. But when Representative Dennis Baxley, the chairman of the delegation specifically asked him: "Mr. Newsom, are you an attorney?" Newsom gave him the spiel of not being here in his capacity as attorney, but that he is here to represent CAN, an advocacy network representing associations. With other words, he quickly switched from his attorney cap to an advocacy cap.
Newsom’s claim to "fame" toward the
legislators, definitely giving them a knowingly misleading impression:
"My
name is Scott Newsom and I'm here on behalf of the Community Advocacy
Network. We are a non-profit
organization that represents over 60,000 homeowner and condominium
associations throughout the state.
We actually represent the associations and their interests and the
legislature has in the last two sessions adopted several provisions that
have greatly assisted community associations throughout the state." Honestly,
that number -- 60,000 associations -- is quite impressive considering
representing associations being a great cash cow for the law firm -- if
the number is really correct. Because I seriously doubt that
Newsom praises the provisions in H319 as great for associations. But again H319 contains a provision that saves associations money at the expense of safety for owners. Every year we saw provisions enacted that endangered the safety of owners, but left associations with more funds for legal bills! Remember extending the retrofit deadline for sprinkler systems in S1196 in 2010?
Let's make it real short: Nothing in the bill pushed by these "association lobbyists" helps associations deal with their biggest problem -- budget shortfalls caused by unpaid dues and/or foreclosures. The latest amendments to H319 protect banks and mortgage lenders even more [AMENDMENTS TO H319 GET BANKS OFF THE HOOK, AGAIN -- LEAVING ASSOCIATIONS/OWNERS HOLDING THE BAG] -- and the "real" lobbyists for CAN and CALL approved the bill by "waiving in support" after these amendments were added. Should associations be really proud of these groups lobbying for them?
But in the end of his presentation attorney Scott Newsom couldn't help himself and switched caps again, this time from advocate to attorney: He gave legal advice on an issue that had come up in another presentation. It just proves: Attorneys are attorneys, no matter which cap they claim to be wearing in the moment!
Board members and owners should be aware that their names -- and numbers -- are used to lobby for bills that are actually working against their interest. This presentation from KG&B attorney Scott Newsom was a typical example for how these attorneys are misleading the Florida legislators, making them believe that they are doing something good for their constituents -- the property owners in community associations -- while in reality they just help to increase the income of association attorneys.
If something sounds too good to be true -- it mostly isn't true. Association attorneys lobbying for the welfare of associations/owners really sounds in my opinion too good to be true. Or: ... DO YOU STILL BELIEVE IN FAIRY TALES?
|