Questions for Discussion in the Search for a Better Way to Live at the POR

SUGGESTED QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE SEARCH

FOR A BETTER WAY TO LIVE AT THE POR

                  1.  How is Condo governance organized? 

a.       How does it work and how could it work better?

b.      Should two persons working together be able to control every decision?

c.       Expansion of the Residential Committee to five?

d.      Preventing RC President and Board President from being same person?

e.      Not permitting Board members elected to the RC to be voting members of RC?

f.        Separate direct election by Residents of the members of the RC and the two Board Members?

g.       Elect leadership on the basis of staggered terms to preserve some continuity?
2.  Should Condo governance be required to be more open?

a.       Require not less than four quarterly open RC and Board meetings a year with RC meetings preceding Board meetings by one full month because Board is required to approve 100 percent of what RC recommends (RC can’t “do” anything per Bylaws).

b.      Should Residents be given notice and right to attend or be on dial in conference call to hear every quarterly RC and Board meeting?

c.       Should other meetings than quarterly be limited to emergency?

d.      Should attendance be taken and minutes taken, and required to be published either on mp3 file or on paper?

e.      Should governance best practices be required?

3                      3.    Do we need a Residents’ Bill of Rights to protect us all from arbitrary tyranny and micromanagement some of us have been experiencing?

a.       All Residents are entitled to the “quiet enjoyment” of their homes by Bylaws (but not as clearly stated as may be needed) and by common law.  Do we have that or do we have micromanagement that is out of bounds?

b.      Residents are entitled to real Due Process. But the same committee or Board that fines us also decides our appeals, under the Rules, and Due Process is eviscerated by the current administration.  The only relief is expensive litigation or toxic atmosphere over time to get people elected “out” of office.  Bill of Rights could address this.

c.       What does it mean to be a pet friendly Condominium?

d.      What does it mean to be watched by cameras at every corner in our homes and punished for not closing the garage door one time out of one thousand in our homes?

4                      4.  Should the Board and/or RC regulate daily life and monitor Rule infractions initially or should that be the job of the Professional Building Manager in a Condominium of our size?

a.       A concern is to keep the volunteer leadership’s actual time commitment to a size that is manageable for the very busy people who live here so we get the best people to volunteer.

b.      Micromanagement by our neighbors or professional management of the building with moderate oversight of the Rules? 

c.       Fines should be the last or the first resort?
5.  Might cost more; Are we getting our money’s worth from PMC?

Let's talk about improving our lives at the Point on the River by improving our government

All POR Residential and Commercial Unit Holders are invited to a Community Gathering to discuss how to find a better way to live at the POR:

WHEN:                          Thursday, November 19^th

WHERE:                         Social Room on Sixth Floor

WHEN:                          7:00 pm to 9:00 pm

(If door closed just knock; all are welcome)

Residential Committee candidates for the December 6^th election of our new Residential Committee are ESPECIALLY invited to attend.

SHORT FORM OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS*

1.    How is Condo governance organized?  (Needs Change?)

2.    Should Condo governance be required to be more open?

3.    Do we need a Residents’ Bill of Rights to protect us all from the arbitrary tyranny and micromanagement some of us have been experiencing?

4.    Should the Board and/or RC regulate daily life and monitor Rule infractions initially or should that be the job of the Professional Building Manager in a Condominium of our size?

5.    Are we getting our money’s worth from PMC?

*More Detailed Discussion Questions Are Available at the Meeting and on www.condolifeinthecity.blogspot.com

Also at South End of Mailboxes

Hosted by Harvey Kurtz and Yvonne Larme, Unit 812

OUTLINE OF OUR COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDENT POUL DAVID RASMUSSEN

COMPLAINT OF RULE VIOLATIONS BY POUL DAVID RASMUSSEN

By:                                          Harvey A. Kurtz & Yvonne Larme (Owners of Unit 812)

Phone Number                 414-332-1964

Email:                          hkurtz@ameritech.net

ylarme@ameritech.net

COMPLAINT AGAINST POUL DAVID RASMUSSEN, PRESIDENT OF POR HOA

COUNT ONE:  ABUSE OF PROCESS; BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; EXTORTION; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD; VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL HARM

COMPLAINT		RULE/BYLAW/STATUTE VIOLATED
Fine Assessment Letter dated January 16, 2015, from HOA Board of Directors. The letter said: “We have communicated to you the allegations of the rules that were potentially [sic] violated after reviewing all of the appropriate documentations from the effected [sic] resident(s).  We have thoroughly reviewed the complaint, the rules of the Association, and the statements from documented witnesses.  The findings of fact are that the complaint was valid, rule(s) were violated, and the Association does have a duty to act on the matter.” There was no complaint, there was no fair and objective investigation, there was no determination of substantial evidence of a violation, the Rules haven’t been enforced “without discrimination,” and the Association never took proper action under the Bylaws.  The entire letter is a lie.		·         Fraud. ·         Extortion. ·         Rule VI.A.1 is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. a is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated. ·         Denial of 14th Amendment Due Process Rights.
On January 19th at 4:09 pm I emailed the Board asking that the fine letter be rescinded because of all the Rules violated in issuing the letter. This letter was taken by the Board as a request for appeal under Rule VI.D.  Less than 90 minutes later President Rasmussen denied my request, saying the Residential Committee (rather than the Board) issued the fine assessment and apparently did so in the last 90 minutes.  It is all just lies.		·         Bylaw Section 2.10 is violated. ·         Bylaw Section2.11 is violated. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated. ·         Denial of Due Process Rights.
During the last two weeks of January President Rasmussen “deemed” that the earlier fine assessment letter had come from the Residential Committee, rather than the Board.  The Bylaws do not allow the President to ignore them.  Or to lie about actions of the Board or the Residential Committee. Under Bylaws Section 2.2 all actions of the Residential Committee must be reviewed by the Board and approved, anyway, before they are final (including assessment of fines).		·         Several sections of the Bylaws are violated when they are ignored like this. The Bylaws do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated. ·         Denial of Due Process Rights. ·         Abuse of Process.
On February 18th a Director and RC member resigned and was immediately replaced (by vote of President Rasmussen and RC member Joel Fleischer) with Jerry Biggart  Jerry Biggart was not qualified to be elected an RC member and HOA Director because he publicly threatened an Owner (me) the previous August, proving him unfit for any office at the POR. See full documentation of the threat in an earlier posting.		·         Breach of fiduciary duty.
By Consent of Directors signed February 23, 2015, the Board (including Jerry Biggart) adopted new Rule IV.T.   This Rule was adopted in direct retaliation of the efforts of the Owners of Unit 812 (us) to challenge the illegal and Rule breaking actions of Poul David Rasmussen.  This change in the fundamental rights of Owners violates our overall rights under the Condominium Declaration and Bylaws.  The only way such a major change in the balance of power between the Owners and the Association could be adopted is by a two-thirds vote of the Owners. That the lawyer hired for the Association by Mr. Rasmussen missed this point in the law should be a huge embarrassment for her and reason, certainly, to find a more competent legal advisor for the Association. Mr. Rasmussen should pay his own legal expenses to help cover up his misdeeds.		·         Rule IV.T. is invalid and unenforceable. ·         Rule IV.T. is unconstitutional retaliation for the exercise of our Due Process Rights. ·         Adoption of Rule IV. T. by a Board so tightly controlled by President Rasmussen is his responsibility and he violated the Bylaws in pushing it for adoption.
On March 13, 2015, we received the rules handed down by President Rasmussen for the Appeal Hearing scheduled for April 11th. The Appeal Hearing Letter says that, under the applicable rules for the Appeal Hearing, “evidence will be received and recorded as described below.” The Rules require that the substantial evidence of a violation of the Rules shall be determined before the Fine Assessment Letter is sent. The Rules (of the Association) require that the substantial evidence must be disclosed to us BEFORE the Appeal Hearing. We received no evidence of any Rule violation before the date of the scheduled Appeal Hearing despite repeated requests for it. President Rasmussen’s unilaterally imposed rules for the Appeal Hearing, the so-called “Lowdermill rules,” approved by the Supreme Court only for use in preliminary hearings for the possible demotion or other sanctioning of a civil service employee, require full disclosure of all evidence before the Appeal Hearing.		·         Taking evidence at an Appeal Hearing violates the Rules because the Rules require all the evidence to be gathered and found to be substantial BEFORE the fine issuance letter is sent. ·         Our Constitutional Due Process Rights are thoroughly violated if the evidence supporting the taking of our property (the fine) is not obtained and made available for review well in advance of any Appeal Hearing.  We have to have a right to carefully examine and challenge the evidence before the Appeal Hearing. ·         The very (inappropriate) rules adopted by President Rasmussen for this hearing, called the “Lowdermill Rules,” are absolutely and clearly violated by scheduling the taking of evidence at the Appeal Hearing. Ignoring that part of the Lowdermill Rules but enforcing the rest of them is Abuse of Process and a Breach of Fiduciary Duties. ·         Manipulating the Rules in unconstitutional ways to achieve forced payments, to which the Association has no right to receive under its own Rules is extortion. ·         Rule VI.C.5.c is violated. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.
The Appeal Hearing Letter also states: “Challenges to the validity of the Residential Committee’s ability to issue a violation will be ruled out of order.” There is no authority in the Rules of the Condominium that allows President Rasmussen to put the validity of how he “enforces” the Rules off limits.		·         Breach of fiduciary duty. ·         Extortion ·         Abuse of Process. ·         Unconstitutional denial of Due Process Rights. ·         Going beyond power granted by the Bylaws.
On March 18, 2015, we ended all attempts to appeal the invalid fine assessment. We knew we would lose the so-called appeal and then be billed thousands of dollars in in expenses.		·         Retaliatory breach of fiduciary duty. ·         Intentional infliction of emotional harm. ·         Denial of Constitutional Right to Due Process. ·         Abuse of Process.

COUNT TWO:  INTENTIONAL ABUSE OF PROCESS; INTENTIONAL BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY; INTENTIONAL EXTORTION; CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD WITH INTENT; INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Received by email on May 8, 2015, from the Residential Committee chaired by President Rasmussen: On behalf of the residential committee of First Place Condominium Association we would like to inform you of the following:  It has come to our attention that on Monday, April 13, 2015, at approximately 8:40pm, an incident with your dog occurred on the first-floor, South delivery hallway. After interviewing, reviewing tapes, etc., it has been determined that there is shared responsibility in this incident and therefore both dog owners will be fined $50.   So this time the Residential Committee is committing the extortion and abuse of process because it is using lies and Rule violations to get money out of us, again.  Everything done wrong in this second, nearly identical process to the one beginning in January 2015, has to be understood as being intentional because nobody could be that ….. ·         There was no full and objective investigation.  There is no evidence of any interview of Rich Carbollo, who was present with his dog. ·         There is no evidence of any interview of David Bagley, who was present with his dog. ·         David Bagley and his Pekingese were part of the dog incident but he was not fined.  ·         The fine assessment letter contained and transmitted absolutely no evidence of a “dog incident” that violated any Rules.        ·         The fine assessment letter refers to tapes (plural).  The only audio tape in existence was the audio tape of my interview with L. Windpassinger, which I gave in reliance on the promise that Rich Carbollo would also be interviewed on tape. There is no evidence that he was ever interviewed prior to his testimony at the Appeal Hearing. ·         The “tapes” used in the fine assessment letter apparently referred also to security camera tapes that were reviewed but never made available to me.  The security camera in the South hallway outside of the Screaming Tuna back entrance does not cover even one square inch of the space in which the entire alleged “incident” took place.  Not one inch. ·         We asked for evidence in writing four times before the date of the Appeal Hearing and received nothing; not even the courtesy of a response.		·         Extortion. ·         Rule VI.A.1 is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. a is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated. ·         Breach of Fiduciary Duty. ·         Abuse of Process. ·         Denial of Due Process Rights. ·         Intentional interference with constitutionally protected rights.
The Appeal Hearing was held on Sunday, July 19, 2015.  By this time President Rasmussen had determined that our alleged Rule violation was no longer the dog incident mentioned in the fine assessment letter; now it was an alleged dog bite, never previously mentioned.  There never was an investigation of a dog bite; we were never assessed a fine related to a dog bite; we never saw any evidence of a dog bite before the Appeal Hearing; this was all just misuse of power by President Rasmussen to cover up the fact that he had mistakenly issued a fine for a “dog incident” in what was supposed to be a “dog friendly” condominium.  Yes, I was the one who pointed out this mistake to him.  Instead of just canceling stupid fines that were issued in error, he decided to pretend we had been fined for a dog bite for which there is no evidence. We did not attend the Appeal Hearing for the same precise reasons we canceled our appearance at the April 11th hearing:  We had not yet received any evidence of anything whatsoever; to our knowledge the only evidence was my taped interview which concluded that, in fact, nothing actually happened except dogs acting like dogs.  The rules imposed by President Rasmussen for this Appeal Hearing were identical to the rules for the April 11th hearing (the constitutionally inappropriate “Lowdermill Rules). As before, even though it was an Appeal Hearing the Residential Committee took new evidence from Rich Carballo and his partner. President Rasmussen declared that their evidence had to be accepted as presented because no one was there to contest it—completely ignoring the fact that evidence cannot be received at Appeal Hearings as an obvious (one would have thought) Due Process requirement. My taped interview was the only valid evidence and it told a very different story than the one told by Ms. Weise and Mr. Carbollo.   Mr. Rasmussen also pointed out (on tape) that, since my dog was on a five foot leash when in the hallway where the security camera filmed us, it only made sense that she was on the same five foot leash during the incident instead of being on a much tighter leash (as she was) during the incident because we came upon a squabble between two other dogs and had no way to escape; I was afraid I would be fined again and took every precaution.  Doing the right thing is not good enough for President Rasmussen.  He also has to like you or you are dead meat here at the POR. Another statement by Mr. Rasmussen on the tape was a classic Rasmussen lie.  Someone asked if I had received a copy of my own interview tape.  Mr. Rasmussen said (on tape) “He would have if he had asked for it but he never asked.”  As noted, I did ask, four times, in writing. This Appeal Hearing Letter also contains the same ludicrous statement that wrongdoing by the Residential Committee (or Board) is off limits: “Challenges to the validity of the Residential Committee’s ability to issue a violation will be ruled out of order.” Of course.  Otherwise President Rasmussen loses every time until he starts following the Rules.		·         Extortion. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. b is violated. ·         Rule VI.A. C.5. c. is violated. ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated. ·         Breach of Fiduciary Duty. ·         Abuse of Process. ·         Refusal to provide the required evidence reviewed before issuing the fine assessment letter is a violation of our Constitutional Due Process Rights. ·         So is taking evidence at the Appeal Hearing. ·         Refusing to allow us to challenge the validity of the fine assessment letter is also a denial of our Due Process Rights.
Our fine assessment for the “dog incident” of which we were actually accused by the invalid fine assessment letter, and for which no evidence was ever put in the record properly except my taped interview, was upheld by the vote of President Rasmussen and Jerry Biggart, who did not attend the Appeal Hearing.  That is not acceptable by anyone’s interpretation of Due Process and it is also plain wrong and unjust.		·         Breach of fiduciary duty. ·         False swearing. ·         Abuse of Process. ·         Conspiracy to deny the Constitutional Right to Due Process. ·         Intentional interference with Due Process Rights ·         Wisconsin Statutes Annotated Chapter 703.10 is violated.