Transparency, Accountability, and Fiscal Responsibility

LEGAL “WORKAROUND” UNDERMINES TRANSPARENCY?

According to the official Board Orientation packet prepared by the Association’s law firm Saul Ewing, “Polling/canvassing board members is not permitted because it represents an unlawful closed discussion of Board business between Board members outside of an open meeting. A phone conference or email communication involving a majority of the members of the Board constitutes a ‘meeting of the board.’”

To navigate around this limitation, the law firm taught the Board a so-called “workaround.” Under this practice, Board members are directed to route communications through Management or the Association’s attorney, who then forwards the email and “blind copies” all Board members. This mechanism permits the Board to engage in indirect discussions regarding Association business without formally convening a meeting– tactic that effectively circumvents the intent of the law governing open and transparent deliberation.

What is particularly troubling is that the named client of Saul Ewing is The Towers Condominium Association—not the Board. Yet, the legal advice being rendered appears tailored to shield Board communications from the very membership the firm purports to represent. Encouraging strategies that inhibit the flow of information to unit owners calls into question not only the appropriateness of this legal guidance, but also the ethical obligations of counsel to act in the best interests of the Association as a whole.

This raises a critical question: Should legal counsel advise the Board on how to obscure communication, or should they uphold a higher duty to promote transparency, accountability, and full disclosure to their client, the members of the Association?

$460/HOUR AND RISING LEGAL FEES: ACCOUNTABILITY?

Attorney Elizabeth Thompson of Saul Ewing currently represents The Towers Condominium Association and bills at a rate of $460 per hour. Importantly, the client is the Association itself—not the Board—raising a legitimate question as to whether Association members should have a say in selecting legal counsel.

Furthermore, communication with Ms. Thompson is restricted solely to the Board President and the building’s manager; other Board members are not permitted to engage directly. This prompts additional concern: Who is requesting Ms. Thompson’s presence at Board meetings, often at considerable expense to the Association? Who has Ms. Thompon answering Section 19 questions that could be answered by the building manager? The Board president obviously.

Given the limited access and recurring appearances, it is worth scrutinizing whether the attorney’s time—and our shared financial resources—are being overutilized by a single individual. Accountability demands not just open records, but open dialogue.

$HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS SPENT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Over the past several years, our association has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars attempting to salvage the pool—expenditures that have yielded minimal results. A year ago, July 2024, a former Board treasurer produced a comprehensive 78-page report detailing two potential paths forward: one, to fully repair the pool at a projected cost of approximately $3.2 million dollars; the other, to decommission (“cork”) the pool and transform the space into a serene sanctuary for residents at approximately $500,000.
The report did not simply present concepts—it provided concrete financial projections, including special assessment estimates per unit. For my unit, under a proposed 10-year payment plan, my share of repairing the pool would have been $25,181.78.

At the time, I served on the Board and formally moved to share the report with all unit owners. That motion was defeated.

This raises a vital question: if such significant information was withheld from the community on a matter of this magnitude, are unit owners receiving accountability and full transparency on other projects? Is the Board acting with fiscal responsibility?

IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION

Voting for a particular candidate can be changed up until the start of the October 7th Annual meeting. This means that even if a person has already voted, they can get another ballot and vote in a different manner. Only the latest ballot counts, so bn sure to mark date and time on the ballot if you are submitting an updated one.

FROM THE OFFICIAL ELECTION RULES:

(b) An additional Voting Packet may be requested by any Unit Owner from Management at any time after the initial distribution and prior to 5:00 p.m. on the day of the Annual Meeting. An additional Ballot may be requested by any Unit Owner from the Election Judges at the site of the Annual Meeting from shortly before the start of the Annual Meeting until the close of the voting period. In the case of the submission of more than one Ballot for a given Unit, only the latest-dated or timed Ballot, including one that may be submitted during the Annual Meeting prior to the close of the voting period, will be counted for purposes of tabulation.