Ms. Wright,
Thank you for your response regarding the First Notice. Several of the specific questions in our email, however, remain unanswered.
Regarding the September 22 Board Meeting:
- The Agenda listed under New Business only “Electronic Voting Provider.” Since the Board ultimately considered and approved changing the Association’s online voting provider from Election Buddy to GetQuorum, please explain how that agenda item specifically identified the action the Board would be considering, as required by §718.112(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes
- When was the proposal to change from Election Buddy to GetQuorum first presented to the Board, and when were Board members provided with information concerning GetQuorum, including its cost and features?
- Was Election Buddy’s $599 Expert Setup service, or any similar service offered by Election Buddy to reduce the administrative work required of Management, considered before the decision was made to change providers?
- What specific features or services does GetQuorum provide that justify the additional cost to the Association?
We would appreciate specific answers to the above questions.
You also asked that we avoid “repeatedly revisiting questions that have already been addressed.” We certainly agree that there is little value in repeatedly asking questions that have been adequately answered. That is not what we are doing. The questions we are identifying are ones that either have not been answered, or for which the information previously provided appears inconsistent with the Association’s records and therefore requires clarification.
Our purpose is simply to obtain clear and accurate answers to specific questions concerning Association business and expenditures. We believe that providing those answers is consistent with the transparency that benefits all owners.
At this point, we are deliberately trying not to overwhelm our neighbors with every question and issue that has arisen. We would much prefer that Management provide clear answers to the specific questions we have raised so that owners can understand the Association’s decisions and records without having to sort through a large volume of correspondence.
Thank you,
Fabian Angarita, Henry Kaplan, Martin Soll, Matthew Roth
P.S. We appreciate that your response was sent to the entire homeowner group. It gives everyone an opportunity to see both the questions that have been answered and those that remain outstanding.
Among them:
- The $232,638 payment to Best Roofing: This issue was raised previously, but the discrepancy concerning the GL code, payment description, and source of funds remains unanswered. There have also been contradictory accounts from Board President Stewart concerning the alleged return of the check, with no apparent response or clarification from the Board. We will provide the relevant documentation and additional details at mysticpointe500owners.org
- Kmedia/Techno IP: There remains a substantial difference between the amounts paid and the amounts reflected in the contracts currently posted on BuildingLink. The specific amounts and the discrepancy were previously provided, but the question remains unanswered.
- Contracts on BuildingLink: We have asked why the Façade Restoration and Painting contract and the Porte Cochere contract are not posted under the Contracts section of BuildingLink, and have not yet received an answer.
We are not raising these matters again simply for the sake of revisiting them. We are identifying specific questions that remain unresolved, as you requested.
We hope Management will provide the requested answers so that there will be no need for us to burden our neighbors with additional correspondence concerning matters that could instead be easily clarified directly.