Members of the Board of Directors respond to our concerns

Members of the Board of Directors, Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins, in their October 1, 2007 letter to Southampton Condominium Property Owners, have responded to our concerns. Their stated position, and our comments follow:

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "On October 1, 2005, two Board Members conducting a routine walk-through inspection of Southampton were accused by a property owner of removing plants from the common areas."

The property owners were not present to accuse anyone when the plants were removed. On May 17, 2006, after a seven month investigation, Linda K. Thompson and Julie Carole Handley were arrested and charged with Grand Larceny (Case #GC06001924-00 and #GC06001925-00). Thompson and Handley told investigating detective Guevarra that the plants belonged to them. The plants were observed being loaded on a green truck belonging to a male sharing Handley's unit. At their trial Thompson and Handley claimed they were removing "trash and weeds".

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: The "Board delayed any decision on the disbursement of legal expenses pending disposition of the legal actions."

Handley received a check for $3000 dated August 17, 2006—two months prior to the "disposition of the legal actions". The grand larceny charge—later reduced to a misdemeanor—was decided on October 19, 2006. The minutes do not show that this "disbursement" was authorized by the Board.

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The insurance carrier likewise recommended that the Board await the conclusion before submitting the judgement and legal bills to the carrier."

A June 30, 2006 letter from the insurance carrier states, "based upon the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their capacity as members of the Board of Directors." Letters dated June 29, 2007 and August 5, 2007 from Enver Masud, plus a letter dated September 26, 2007 from the Reddy's asking for a hearing, provided Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins with facts showing that the conduct complained of does not stem from Thompson's and Handley's capacity as members of the Board of Directors.

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins state, "a claim has since been filed with the insurance carrier".

The insurance carrier responded to the claim by letter dated August 15, 2007 which states, "this matter never rose to meet the definition of a Claim". In other words, based upon the facts provided, the insurance carrier will not reimburse the Association. The claim was filed on July 18, 2007—after Joe Smith and Enver Masud began their inquiries. The Association has spent more than $8885 on this issue—invoices submitted by the Association's attorney are not included in this amount.

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins: "The arrest and other records of the proceedings were subsequently ordered expunged."

Who requested the records expunged, who issued the order, when was the work performed? From the date on the invoice from Stephen Pickard to Tom Patti—which does not itemize tasks and time spent, it would appear that this work was performed prior to any decision by the Board. It's curious that the check for $1800 is made to Julie Handley—not Stephen Pickard.

Furthermore:

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins have a fiduciary duty. They, and the Association's attorney, are expected to exercise due diligence. They should have heard from the complainant, Mr. and Mrs. Reddy, from Ron Graham and Enver Masud who witnessed the removal of the plants, and from three other witnesses who were available to testify to the ownership and condition of the 32 to 34 potted plants which were removed, before making their decision.

By not hearing from the Reddys and witnesses, the Board incurred unnecessary legal expenses, and may have forced the matter into civil litigation, thereby, incurring additional liabilities for the Association. They did this despite the cautionary note from the insurance carrier: "based upon the information provided to date, there is a question as to whether the conduct complained of stems from their capacity as members of the Board of Directors." According to Bylaws, Article VII, Section 1 the Association is not liable for “individual willful misconduct or bad faith”.

Dogan, Seekford, possibly Conforti have a conflict of interest. They were not elected. The minutes show that they owe their position on the Board to Thompson and/or Handley.

Conforti, Dogan, Pariente, Seekford, Watkins, when they met to compose their letter of October 1, 2007 may have violated the condominium Act. § 55-79.75.B states: "All meetings of the unit owners' association or the executive organ, including any subcommittee or other committee thereof, shall be open to all unit owners of record. The executive organ shall not use work sessions or other informal gatherings of the executive organ to circumvent the open meeting requirements of this section." § 55-79.75.A requires that an officer or his agent "at least seven days in advance . . . send to each unit owner notice of the time, place, and purposes of such meeting."

The Executive Sessions at which this matter was discussed were held in violation of § 55-79.75. C: "The executive organ . . . may convene in executive session . . . upon the affirmative vote in an open meeting to assemble in executive session. The motion shall state specifically the purpose for the executive session. Reference to the motion and the stated purpose for the executive session shall be included in the minutes. . . . No contract, motion or other action adopted, passed or agreed to in executive session shall become effective unless the executive organ . . . , following the executive session, reconvenes in open meeting and takes a vote on such contract, motion or other action which shall have its substance reasonably identified in the open meeting."