The candidates are in!

The candidates for the four openings on the board have been published. Surprisingly, Mrs. Ingold has chosen to run only three candidates for the open positions, each of whom are incumbents. The fourth, Mr. Sanes, has decided not to run again. The other two candidates are from the camp Mrs. Ingold has dubbed “dissidents”, and Ellis Levin has described as “the minority in the building”.

If one speaks to any of the incumbents, you’ll find reasonably intelligent and pleasant individuals.  A stark contrast from the lemmings they are when one looks at their board voting record. These are the individuals Mrs. Ingold supports with the proxy votes given to her by intimidated unit owners. Let’s look at each one below:

Ted Sieber:
If you have been to any board meeting, you may notice Mr. Sieber as the elderly gentleman who is usually sleeping in the corner till he is nudged by Mrs. Ingold to vote in favor of her initiatives. He almost never speaks in the meeting except to “second a motion” or vote (though he often does not remember what he is voting for). The sole idea he gave in the last year was to fine anyone who complained about the state of the building. The unit owners in attendance jeered at this,  and he was quickly hushed by the rest of the board.

David Goglin:
Mr. Goglin’s past year’s tenure has been a disappointment to many. He was initially considered to be an independent thinker. It’s hard to know if it was because of a stick or a carrot, but Mr. Goglin has joint the fold and voted in lock step with Mrs. Ingold 100% of the time for the entire past term.

Frank Perham:
Perhaps the most insidious of the three, Mr. Perham is well educated, well spoken and polite. He was hand picked and anointed onto the board by Mrs. Ingold to replace one of her long-time allies who passed away. In the absence of Mr. Tatera who is Mrs. Ingold’s right hand man, he is the go to person for both Ellis Levin and Mrs. Ingold (both of whom often whisper in his ear during board meetings) when they want to bring up a topic without having the minutes reflect that they are the source. He has also voted 100% of the time with Mrs. Ingold.

What’s most dangerous about Mr. Perham is that he does speak up during board meetings, but only to support Mrs. Ingold’s agenda. In contrast to our many silent board members, Mr. Perham has been able to twist most unit owner’s questions or complaints into something different, and remove focus from their original points. We predict that he will pick up the most proxy votes at the end of the election as he is the most valuable of the three to Mrs. Ingold.

Some of the topics these three individuals have helped fast track include:

  • The 2012 budget (without addressing any of the questions regarding blatant discrepancies posed by Mr. Bogdan and Mrs. McCarty). This budget was put together by only Mrs. Ingold, Mr. Tatera and Ms. Dryssen. No other board member was invited to provide input, and none of the rubber stamps had a problem with this.
  • The acceptance of the contractor who repaired (and also set fire to) our roof without looking at competing bids. The bid chosen was over $100,000 greater than other bids that were brought to the board, but were not accepted to be even considered.
  • Allowing Mrs. Ingold to appeal suing her neighbor for not paying for the entire plumbing bill for a pipe they the two have in common when it overflowed. (He had offered to pay for half of the bill). This was done in order to increase the fees he would have to pay his lawyer to defend him in court even after a judge threw out the lawsuit the first time round.
  • Allowing the  very dangerous precedent of allowing Ellis Levin to tack on arbitrary “Legal Fees” to fines without any board member being able to look at any invoices. Levin explained during a meeting that only the board president is privy to the fee breakdown. Other board members should be content with just the aggregated amounts. So far two residents have been hit with these four figure “legal fees”, and not one of Mrs. Ingold’s rubber stamps have said as much as a peep about them.
  • Approving expenses bundled into aggregated amounts without requesting a breakdown or looking at any of the receipts, and deriding those board members who do request to see these receipts.

Each unit owner gets four votes – one per open seat. (The cover sheet we were given is from last year, and is incorrect). Fortunately, it’s possible to allocate all four votes to one or both of the remaining candidates (Omar Ghaffar and/or Tammy Richmond) without voting for the three incumbents. If you have already surrendered your proxy vote, do not fret. Voting in person on election day overrides any previously issued proxy. Just cross out the “proxy” in the signature section of the sign-up sheet on election day and update it with your signature.

Advertisement
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to The candidates are in!

  1. Gary Brown says:

    INCOMPETENCE SHOWS AGAIN

    The notice of the Annual Meeting said there are four vacancies on the Board of Managers to be filled. The Notice of Candidates form said there are six vacancies on the Board of Managers to be filled. Both communications were authored by the Board President. With this degree of incompetency and attention to detail along with the fact the President is the sole administrator and manipulator of the Association’s finances, is it any wonder the Association is nearly bankrupt? Change must be made!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s