Comments About Board Through May 4, 2024
Let's consider these facts:
No explanation is offered for these and other issues:
Barring David Marquis from running for the board on the grounds that he and
his wife together own only one unit and there should not be a married couple
on the board so as to give two board votes to owners of only one unit, meanwhile
allowing the President and the Treasurer, a married couple who together own
only one unit, to together have two board votes. The double standard is obvious
and has no defense.
Lack of collection efforts on past-due COA fees including but not limited
to 14th-floor legal status
No periodic official reports, and no official pathway from a question
from a skeptical owner to the board, however frivolous, that generates
an answer of substance that we all can review
Objections to recording telephone conversations and other encounters
Disparaging those of us who attempt negotiations in parallel with the
formal ones with the developer, even when such parallel negotiations
are handled with a promise to retreat to the background when the formal
ones are proceeding well
No recent audits, and no explanation as to why the delinquency in such
audits was remedied only recently
No known formal inquiry into what we pay for when we hire Tomoka
Management and assurance from audits that we in fact get it, given that
some issues such as apparent overcharges with trash removal have occurred
The March hearing at city hall was not attended by any board members
who actively participated. (The April one was while developer negotiations
were/are pending, and the unwillingness to antagonize the developer
is fair.)
Leadership by the board is vacillating and haphazard, expensively so. Its
members have committed to one course of action, or plan, irreversibly
spending or promising to spend our money on that plan, then abandoning
it without having been presented with new information that would reasonably
call for a change of plans. Sometimes, the board has allocated our money for
a purpose that was not disclosed. Note the absence of recent comprehensive
audits if you consider the above to be false or unreasonable.
Related to the above, the board has grudgingly accepted interaction with
committees and overruled without apology or explanation the recommendations
of those committees when the committee members have greater relevant expertise
and skill than the board members themselves. Note the difficulty in locating
in social media posts or official communications any committee recommendations
and the board's responses to them: why?
The board has defied sunshine laws. By-laws that would effect mandated
compliance with such laws have not been formally proposed. An honorable
board would enact such by-laws and other protections as surety against
inept or criminally self-serving successors. This board didn't.
Dick Burke’s questions, which are of interest to us all, were not answered
directly or indirectly when sent to the board president. See
here
and do not accept a response that someone was "too busy," for the task
of answering these questions could easily have been delegated and was not.
These are my assessments of the specific candidates who are on the board now,
and one who was on the board earlier. Please note that these candidates have
clear assets that are valuable to us DBR owners, but those assets are perhaps
not best harnessed in a position of decision-making authority. An expert
carpenter is exactly that and probably cannot design a skyscraper, an
outstanding nurses aide is not automatically qualified to do brain surgery,
and a brave and hard-working bank guard won't be trusted as an investment
fund manager. Same principle.
Steven Dowd
A verifiable work ethic and awareness of hands-on concepts, which are assets
to us. But he lives a substantial distance away and works full time, facts
that interfere with the noblest of intentions.
His statement could have said that all past-due obligations have been paid.
It did not. That lapse of precision is concerning.
When he fell behind on those obligations, he remained on the Legal Committee,
an obvious conflict of interest unless it cna be shown that he recused himself
from every vote in which he had a material interest in the outcome not shared
by the owners at large.
He doesn't have a noticeable record of presenting and defending an opinion that
differs from that of the majority. When someone is in a leadership position,
we the people expect that person to lead, not always to follow.
Renata Gozdziak
Background is an asset, and I have been credibly informed that her work record
on our behalf is commendable.
Personality conflicts are not generally grounds to withhold support, but
there are major issues here. First, see the top of her candidate sheet.
“Join us on Facebook”: is this an official site of the COA? No! This site
does not permit people to post links including of useful things such as to
the Easement Agreement (my link got me admonished). Misrepresenting by
omission the authority of a personally administered Facebook group is
dishonest. Separately, she described my writings as a “manifesto” and,
on my challenge, said that she had not read them. End of credibility.
There’s an unforgivable ego problem.
See also her history of creating websites and the lack of a COA website
that she created or had created in her role as a board member. I had to
fill the gap personally. The unwillingness to share useful information
except through a censored (link-proof) Facebook group has no defense.
She can, and I hope she does, work on our behalf and not from a board position.
Bonnie Laslo
Strong background in real-estate management, but there is credible concern
about lack of periodic up-to-date financial statements—and she is the
Treasurer and, though she says that reparative work is in progress,
does not explain how and why the accounting fell behind to begin with.
She has also, in social-media posts, cracked down on the practice of
recording conversations. This prohibition apparently has the blessing
of Florida law, but to me suggests a thought process that I find worrisome
in addition to prohibiting an invincible solution to “that’s not what
I said!” arguments and misunderstandings.
Patrick O’Donnell
Very experienced in real-estate management. His Candidate Information Sheet
does provide a good statement of intent (though it lists the obvious and
offers nothing beyond the obvious immediate problems so I consider it
preventably vague). We don't know what he hopes and expects for DBR
specifically after the developer conflicts are resolved. His list
Accomplishments with the Board is impressive at first glance, but he offers
no evidence that his work is better than we could expect from another
board member in his position. His personal accomplishments, itemized
as distinct from those of the board collectively, are singularly absent
from his Information Sheet.
He was asked last month some questions that were credibly shared by
several of us owners and did not dignify the inquiry with any response
at all. Here’s
the link.
At a recent online board meeting, I asked whether the elevator modernization
will include upgrading the computer algorithm that decides, when an up or
down button is pressed, which elevator in a bank of two or more will respond
to the call. That algorithm is extremely complicated, and with recent major
decreases in costs of computer processors and memory one can expect that the
algorithms have improved in recent years. He replied that all cabs and
elevators would be upgraded. When I asked specifically about the algorithms,
which are obviously not associated with any one elevator, he said without
directly answering the question that everything would be upgraded. He
didn’t say that he didn’t know and he didn’t answer my direct inquiry.
The above incident is arguably trivial. But it highlights how he responds
to an inquiry from us voters when he does not know a specific answer: bluff
and unwarranted vagueness.
Pressing the admittedly trivial issue would have had me silenced, by social
compliance. I do not trust anyone who uses politeness and social compliance
expectations to divert attention from personal deficits, such as not knowing
a relevant fact.
Alan Rommes
Important experience with DBR administration is clear and, if harnessed
properly, is a plus. But he was on the board while payments to the developer
for the developer’s own expenses were made. That looks wrong. It isn’t
worthy of condemning Alan Rommes, of course. But his reaction in his
Candidate Information Sheet? He “won’t go into the garbage and
misinformation that is out on Facebook.” Urging the ignoring of nonsense
is good, but he omitted an opportunity to provide the correct
information, thereby preventably not educating us properly by his
standards. (Personal web hosting is expensive. But Google Drive is free.
Anyone can write up a fairly lengthy monograph, upload it, set the link
to read-only access to anyone, then share the link with the rest of us.
He didn’t.)
Personality conflicts? Sure, it’s best if they do not exist. But to
prevent being abused, one must defend personal boundaries and risk
conflict if necessary. Otherwise, abusers will note the lack of defense;
and the results will include interpersonal strife. That's not our
problem if the damage is confined to only those without proper defenses.
But when one is defenseless and is an agent who is responsible for
someone else’s assets, the damage is spread to the innocent, to those
on whose behalf the person works. I don’t know for a fact, but I suspect
that much of the developer disagreement mess derives from social
compliance pressure on agents for others, with truckling to it.
We don’t need agents like that.
I have encountered personal conflict on various DBR websites, including
having someone talk down to me in a presumed therapist-patient context,
having my writings declared a manifesto by someone who did not read
them, and having my opinions declared unimportant on say-so only by
an apparent egotist. (I blocked the perpetrators.) But I welcome firm
peaceable disagreement that derives from facts and honest reasoning.
Is my attitude faulty? I was in jail for a month (ex-wife and attorneys
lied to judges) and got along very well with guards and with temporary
colleagues. Earlier, I was legendary when I visited my first ex-wife’s
school in a bad New York City neighborhood that was full of
special-education (translation: emotionally disturbed) students and
people marveled at how well I got along with them. If I can get along
with these singularly difficult people, then if there is strain
between me and someone else then I don’t think I’m the problem.
Alan Rommes, given that he has a good record of getting along with
the difficult, would be an asset for us. But that doesn’t mean that
we want him in a senior decision-making position. He probably has
superior talents regarding negotiating and regarding infrastructure
concerns. But those talents don’t automatically translate into
direct leadership skills.
