When Accountability Was on the Agenda – But Never Made It to the Table
On June 19, 2025, owners gathered for a long-awaited special meeting – an opportunity to question recent decisions, clarify financial confusion, and address governance concerns. Unfortunately, the meeting fell short before it even began.
⚠️ Quorum Not Met
The meeting could not proceed formally because the required 44-owner quorum was not reached.
Why?
- No hybrid or virtual option for owners unable to attend in person
- Many owners lack access to Condo Control and never received Notice
- No posters, flyers, or announcements to promote the meeting in advance
Despite these barriers, a number of concerned owners still showed up.
🎤 President’s Opening Remarks
The Board president made several claims – some misleading, others verifiably false:
- “Legal fees are driving up condo fees.”
→ False: Legal fees have been steady at $150,000/year for the last three years. - “Special meetings are too expensive — this one cost $22,000.”
→ False: The high school cafeteria cost less than $500. The rest of the $21,500? The 3 lawyers they brought to protect them. - “Interest rates are going up, so we rejected a reserve fund loan.”
→ False: Interest rates have been falling sharply. This rationale clearly proves that our board is not financially savvy. - “Tariffs are hurting the board’s buying power.”
→ Possibly – but so are rising condo fees hurting owner buying power. No acknowledgment of that.
Also notable: Three lawyers and multiple Sanderson representatives were present. Why? At what cost?
âś‹ Owner Participation Silenced
The requisitioner was cut off and not allowed to finish.
For context:
🍼 The requisitioner’s first grandchild was born that day, and they had asked that the meeting be scheduled after June 25th. That request was ignored.
đź’¬ Discussion Highlights from Those Who Stayed
Although informal, several key issues were raised:
- Refusal to consider lowering condo fees using a reserve loan
- Failure to tender the boiler project
- Cost of special meetings ($22,000 each?)
- The inexplicable legal entourage
- Lack of transparency and evasive answers
According to attendees, board responses were vague, confusing, and evasive.
🗣️ Verbal Promise: Owner-Only “Townhalls”
Near the end, there was a non-binding verbal agreement that the board would hold future “townhall” meetings – without lawyers to improve communication with owners.
As of this post: No plans have been made. No dates announced. No action taken.
🚪 Final Thought
A meeting meant to promote transparency did the opposite: it showed how far the board will go to control the narrative, avoid scrutiny, and shut down dissent.
We came for answers.
What we got was spin, silence – and a very expensive “team of legal babysitters“.
