Category: Uncategorized

Dear Neighbors,

If you want to see something funny—or sad, depending on your perspective—please look at the newly released Weekly Management Report. It includes a photograph of two workers in the kitchen/Zoom room area of our Hospitality Room, with the caption: “K4 was onsite installing new microphones for the Zoom and testing the system in advance of the Board Meetings.”

If you had the misfortune of watching or attending last Tuesday’s meeting, which in hindsight looked more like a reelection campaign than a Board meeting, you may have your own opinion about how well K4 has served us over the past few years. Yet this Board seems determined to stick with them, much as it seems determined to stick with Castle, regardless of questions about effectiveness and reliability.

Let’s put aside, for now, the obviously problematic Zoom setup and the question of how that outdated projector-and-microphone system came to be installed. We’ll get to that another time.

If you were here a few years ago, you may remember Castle’s Regional Director, Jim Koslosky, walking around the room with a microphone, allowing any owner who wished to speak to contribute to the discussion. That is now ancient history. Under this Board, we owners seem to have lost even that basic courtesy, along with our committees and the transparency we deserve.

Today, Ms. Wright appears willing to do whatever it takes to protect Stewart, like a mother bear protecting her cub. Of course, that relationship may well work both ways—and we are the ones who may pay dearly for it.

At Tuesday’s meeting, I was sitting next to Henry Kaplan. Both of us immigrated from Communist countries to what we consider the greatest country in the world. We grew up exposed to the kind of propaganda we thought we had left behind. Yet that evening, we encountered something uncomfortably familiar.

For an hour, we heard what amounted to an unbroken parade of good news. Castle Group was wonderful, had discounted its fees, and we should all be grateful for the extraordinary good fortune of having such a harmonious Board of Directors.

What was missing was any meaningful examination of whether our interests as owners are actually being served. The image that came to mind was a Board whose members ask, in unison, “How high?” whenever Stalin (Stewart) or Molotov (S. Sayuk) says, “Jump!”

The irony is that we cannot blame Castle, Falcon, or PG Restoration for pursuing their own interests. But those interests are surely not the same as ours. It is the Board’s responsibility to protect us—not to make life easier for the companies with which we do business.

Castle Group may be an excellent management company in many respects, with informative instructional videos and the resources of a large corporate organization behind it. But let’s not forget that management companies are businesses, and businesses exist to make money. The question is whether our Board is doing its job to ensure that we receive value for what we pay.

Forget it. With Mystic Pointe 500, they may have hit the mother lode.

Does anyone genuinely believe the glowing account of Castle’s generosity presented at Tuesday’s meeting? I include those who offered their wise comments on the Zoom chat.

And what about the actual cost of management? Until owners can examine clear, comparable financial information, we cannot know whether management fees and other charges have increased over the past several years. I strongly suspect they have, but the records should speak for themselves.

As for obtaining an honest and transparent picture of our finances while Karen remains involved in the accounting process, I have serious concerns. Wasn’t it only a couple of years ago that Stewart questioned her competence, suggesting that she might be senile? I have the emails documenting what was said. Apparently, that was a different Stewart—a remarkable chameleon.

There seems little reason for Castle’s current Regional Director to visit our building if everything is running so smoothly. We hardly ever see her. Everything is under control. The money keeps flowing, and the owners are expected to applaud.

But Tuesday’s meeting revealed something even more disturbing: a complete reversal of the relationship between management and the people it is supposed to serve.

I remember Koslosky standing quietly at the back of the room, holding the microphone and waiting for an owner to speak. Last Tuesday, elderly owners had to struggle their way to the one functioning microphone and then stand before a panel of unapproachable officials, practically begging for answers from the very people who are supposed to represent them.

Is this what our community has come to? Is this how owners who have invested their life savings in their homes are supposed to be treated when they dare to ask questions?

We are not Castle’s customers in name only. We are the owners who pay the bills. The Board works for us, not the other way around.

On November 17, we have an opportunity to remind everyone of that fundamental fact.

Please use your vote wisely.

Thank you,
Matthew Roth, with Ariel Messina and Marty Soll

P.S. In light of recent events, it is more important than ever that we seek independent oversight of the November 17 Board election and the tabulation of its votes. On Sunday afternoon, around 3 PM, we will be in the lobby with clipboards, asking owners to sign a petition requesting the State of Florida’s involvement. Please stop by and sign it.

Dear Neighbors,

With our Annual Meeting and Board Election scheduled for November 17, 2026, we—as candidates for the Board of Directors—believe it is important to bring several troubling management and voting issues to your attention before they affect our community.

The recent switch from Election Buddy to GetQuorum, the unexplained delay in receiving election-related emails, and conflicting information about a committee meeting raise serious questions about management’s procedures and transparency. Owners deserve clear answers before they are asked to vote.

1. The October 14 Meeting: A “Grievance Meeting” or a Finance Committee Workshop?

On Wednesday, October 14, a meeting was held at 1:30 PM. Flyers distributed to residents identified it as a “Grievance Meeting,” while the official agenda identified a Finance Committee workshop. When this discrepancy was raised, management dismissed it as a “typographical error.”

Calling this a typographical error does not answer the more fundamental question: What Finance Committee was meeting?

BuildingLink lists no committees for either 2025 or 2026. There is no documentation available to owners establishing that a Finance Committee exists, identifying its members, or documenting its authority and activities.

In these circumstances, dismissing the conflicting notices as a typo is not an adequate explanation. Management and the Board must clarify what committee was meeting, who authorized the meeting, who its members are, and why residents received conflicting information about its purpose.

Florida Statute § 718.112(2)(c) establishes notice and agenda requirements for board and certain committee meetings, including meetings involving budget recommendations. The discrepancy raises a serious question about whether owners received clear and accurate notice of the meeting’s purpose.

Owners deserve a full explanation of what occurred and assurances that meeting notices will be accurate and transparent going forward.

2. The October 9 GetQuorum Email: Where Is the Delivery Record?

Many owners received a GetQuorum email on October 9 stating that the deadline for submitting Board applications had been October 8.

Management reportedly explained that the original GetQuorum email was sent on October 6 but that a “system volume delay” affected delivery.

Claiming that an email was sent on October 6 does not establish that it was delivered that day—or explain why owners received it after the application deadline.

If management maintains that the email was transmitted on October 6, it should be able to produce the transmission records and relevant delivery timestamps. The explanation of a “system volume delay” should be supported by evidence, not simply accepted without verification.

During a transition to a new election platform, management must be able to demonstrate that critical election communications are being sent and delivered reliably and on time.

We ask management to provide the relevant transmission and delivery records and explain what safeguards are in place to prevent similar problems with election communications.

3. The November 17 Election: What Safeguards Are in Place?

The Board initially identified Election Buddy as the electronic voting provider and subsequently decided to use GetQuorum, for which the Board has provided an explanation. Regardless of the reason for the change, owners deserve reassurance that the transition will not compromise their ability to vote.

Florida Statute § 718.128 establishes specific requirements for authorized electronic voting systems, including voter authentication, ballot secrecy and integrity, and confirmation that an owner’s electronic device can communicate successfully with the system at least 14 days before the voting deadline.

We need clear answers about how these requirements will be met and how owners who have not consented to electronic voting will receive the required election materials.

A reliable election requires more than selecting a software provider. It requires a tested process, accurate owner records, timely communications, and clear procedures for every eligible voter.

4. Tuesday’s Board Meeting: We Need Answers Now

The Board is scheduled to meet this Tuesday, October 20. According to the meeting information, the Board is expected to address the final budget package for distribution. This is also an important opportunity to obtain answers about the issues outlined above.

As candidates for the Board of Directors, we request that the Board and Castle Management address the following questions at Tuesday’s meeting:

1. GetQuorum readiness: What testing has been completed to verify the accuracy of the owner database and the reliable delivery of election-related communications? What records document those tests?
2. Paper and electronic voting: What procedures will ensure that every eligible owner receives the appropriate election materials and can vote using an authorized method? How will management verify compliance with Florida’s electronic-voting requirements?
3. Election transition: What specific safeguards have been implemented to ensure that the transition from Election Buddy to GetQuorum does not disrupt the election or prevent eligible owners from voting?
4. The October 14 meeting: Why did the flyer identify a “Grievance Meeting” while the official agenda identified a Finance Committee workshop? BuildingLink lists no committees for 2025 or 2026. What evidence establishes that a Finance Committee exists, who are its members, and what authority does it have? What steps will be taken to ensure accurate meeting notices going forward?

We ask that these questions and the Board’s responses be reflected in the meeting record.

To our neighbors: Please attend Tuesday’s Board meeting, either in person or via Zoom.

Management’s meeting notice, distributed October 16, contains the meeting details and Zoom access information. Please consult that notice and make every effort to participate.

This is about more than a software change or an incorrectly labeled meeting. It is about transparency, responsible management, financial oversight, and every owner’s right to participate meaningfully in our community.

Our votes matter. Our rights matter. And accountability matters.

Best regards,

Ariel Messina (Unit 1911)
Martin Soll (Unit 401)
Matthew Roth (Unit 2105)

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!