More good information on the AED location buried in the usual crap.

From: J. Biggart
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2015 6:06 PM
To: Owners of Unit 812
Cc: David David Rasmussen; Laura Windpassinger ; Joel Fleischer
Subject: Fwd: AED in Exercise Room? Not the Best Practice--Just ask the experts

Look - you guys are not communicating in a manner with us like you do with others. You attack then cry foul whenever your answered in the very way you address people. Your continued insults and harassment of us seems to be ok, but when your responded to in kind you're being harassed. It is mind boggling to me. So, to help you further understand that significant thought went into this decision let me further clarify how little this had to do with Dave and I.

I not only used my 20 years of prehospital cardiac arrest experience, but researched other condo buildings, and discussed placement with a medical control physician and the community resource person at the Milwaukee Fire Department, in addition to being a paramedic, paramedic, CPR, PALS and ACLS instructor. If I'm 100% totally wrong I turn to you to educate me with some evidence that would dictate one placement is so much more superior than the other. I then think it's important that I share your evidence based statements with all of them so that we can not all be wrong when dealing with a life saving machine. 

We are being praised by outsiders and hung from the highest tree by a vocal minority with little or no prehospital experience in cardiac arrest scenarios. 

We thoroughly discussed putting it on two but the consensus decision after evaluating the evidence and recommendations deemed the cardio workout room as appropriate or more appropriate than the second floor.

When we have the resources we will likely buy a second AED to place in another strategic location. The one valid point that you have is that a FOB is needed to access the AED. We may consider the potential of relocating it in the board room for that reason. Nonetheless, the second floor is quite likely not going to be the location of the AED until and if a second AED is purchased.

At some point the two you you could find yourself much more meaningful if you write in a civil and non-attacking way. 

Laura doesn't make final decisions for this building without consultation with the RC and / or Board does. Address those two bodies like you address Laura and you will likely have much more success in your efforts to make a meaningful contribution to this community. 

We made an evidenced based decision knowing that there were a few locations of merit. The second floor was not excluded from the discussion. The second floor and the fitness room were the two locations being considered. I will consult with Dave and others to see if a different location near the fitness center is as good or better. Bottom line is that the AED will remain close to the fitness center and the rooms where people congregate which is also between two elevators and a stairwell. 

Don't loose tract of the fact that this is how the scenario is going to go for an unwitnessed or witnessed arrest in a unit with two people in it:

1. Person is deemed unresponsive which triggers the person to call 911

2. 911 is called, help is sent, and the dispatcher will keep you on the phone explaining pre-arrival instructions and walking you through CPR

3. Good quality CPR is key, without another person to call the front desk (provided someone is there to begin with) or to run and get the AED it's highly unlikely that the AED will play into this scenario prior to MFD arrival from 1st and Virginia.

4. Evidence supports that the most likely room in this building for sudden cardiac arrest is the fitness center, next would be rooms where parties are thrown due to the mix of people attending - many who are elderly throughout the year. 

5. People have muscle memory with respect to their brain. If any effort at all is placed into remembering this tool, you will remember its existence and location on one of the worst days of your life. That being said, I truly believe that the fire department will be here with an AED before you could access it unless there are at least 2 alive people in the unit. The chances of witnessed cardiac arrest by bystanders, where there is more than one person to call 911 and do pre-arrival CPR is most likely rooms where people congregate. 

6. At a minimum we will buy a placard for the fitness center door (or wherever this ends up should the location change) that lets people know there is an AED in the room. 

7. Many cardiac arrests are not able to be turned around by an AED, and if the person isn't found within 10 minutes of dying the AED is likely to make no difference in someone's quality of life unless amazing CPR is performed. If you choose to run down to the second floor for an AED and not perform chest compressions the person would be much less viable for defibrillation. 10% drop in success every minute CPR is not occurring. Additionally, in a non-witnessed arrest you are to do two minutes of CPR before delivering a shock. This is to move some blood through the heart and make it more viable to stop, then restart, after the shock (if they are even in a shockable rhythm). The majority of cardiac arrests outside the clinical setting are not witnessed, with the national average of resuscitation being 5-7% (and that doesn't speak to quality of life if you survive).

8. The fire department will not shock an unwitnessed arrest unless at least 2 minutes of quality CPR has been completed. The focus needs to be on listening to the dispatcher. 

The AED is placed in the location that we, and those we consulted with, believe will give someone the best chance at survival and is predicated on where the risk increases and the likelihood that it will even have the chance of being used.

Believe it or not, the decisions that we make are not made with to upset or agitate you, make you feel harassed, or without evidence supporting the decision. We can make no right move in your eyes and we've come to accept that while at the same time conducting business, competing projects that increase the quality of life, wellbeing and safety of the residents, fund long term infrastructure plans fairly and without surprise, stabilizing costs, investing in the longterm health of the POR community, facilities, and financial security, and holding people accountable to the Association when the violate rules in order to have a fair, equitable, and consistent way to keep the POR a luxury property in downtown Milwaukee amongst many other initiatives.

Since neither you or your wife have run for the POR RC in years, and since most of the leaders have run unopposed every term, you've got to, at some point, let those people work under the auspices that they have researched their decision and have used evidence to come up with the disposition. 

Countless hours have been spent on trying to work with you and keep you happy over the last 4 + years to no avail. Every team has been under fire from you regardless the person or the issue. From garage doors to river walk lights, rule enforcement to AEDs, and everything in between. 

You've got to let up Harvey or people are never going to volunteer here. From Chuck to John, Jerry to Dave, Lynn to Joel, you've mercilessly and brutally attacked them and threatened to ruin them, make the loose their house, demand their resignation, publicly ridiculed them, and even worried one about their safety in the building. 

I may correspond with you in the same disrespectful manner that you address me, but you've really behaved yourself into it and that's the playing field we are on now. You can't insult and harass people then threaten them with lawsuits when they respond in kind. 

The only thing I will ever ask of you is to lighten up on the people willing to volunteer around here. You always find a way to vilify each and every one of them. We will have no one to take these jobs and do this work if they have to deal with the harassment that you dole out to them. We need people to volunteer and not all of them can take folks like you as Dave and I can. Only for the work Dave and I are in are we likely able to deal with your insults, harassment, and threats while at the same time working hard for the vast majority of owners and residents happy with what's all been accomplished since Mandel left.

This website advises that fitness centers are a key location to place AEDs:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/laws-on-cardiac-arrest-and-defibrillators-aeds.aspx

Fitness centers are always referenced as the top location for AED placement:

http://www.sca-aware.org/sudden-cardiac-arrest-faqs#faq20

Fitness Centers:

http://m.circ.ahajournals.org/content/105/9/1147.full

Fitness Center:

http://www.sca-aware.org/on-site-cpr-aed-programs

Fitness Center:

http://m.injuryclaimcoach.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.injuryclaimcoach.com%2Fgym-insurance-claims.html

Please excuse typos or grammar errors. It's tough to do this on an iPhone.

Jerry 

Useful Information Regarding the AED

 Posted at the request of Mr. Rasmussen; apparently written by the resident in 913.  It's not an apology for a nasty email but it does contain useful information.

From: Poul David Rasmussen

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 5:45 PM
To: Owners of Unit 812
Subject: Re: The POR now has an AED on the 6th floor in the gym 

There is no location that answers all of the concerns that can exist from putting this AED one place or another. I don't think that there is any quantifiable benefit that makes one better than the other. Here are the things to consider:

1. The current placement is in the fitness room, and arguably a place with increased risk which is why you see these in fitness centers around the world. 

2. The AED is in the center of the building in-between two elevators, and one stairwell, and all of the community space where we also see an increased risk due to elderly family attending events.

3. The concierge is not 24/7, nor are they at the front desk constantly when they are here. It is a hell of a long haul from me, in 913 to go to the extreme end of the building to get an AED when I can go to 6 in the center of the building and grab the machine. 

4. The AED is third in-line of what people should do. 1. Determine unresponsiveness and call 911, 2. start CPR, 3. if there is another person that person would get the AED. Guess what, in this City, if you call 911 for someone that is pulseless, the Dispatcher is going to keep you on the phone and give you pre-arrival CPR instruction and you won't be able to call anyone on the phone because you're going to be thumping on the person's chest the entire time. 

5. The Concierge will have to go to 6 and grab the AED, yes, but there are so many more factors to consider that putting it on 2 does not have more benefits than putting it on 6 due to the many scenarios that are also realistic. 

We trade problems by moving it. If we move it near an elevator or stairwell we loose any accountability of the device. The AED can be used anywhere and if anyone took it and re-purposed it at their business or gave it to their elderly parents we'd have no clue other than it being gone. We can at least have a record by using the FOB accountability. I've been a proponent of a camera in the workout and social room which may be another justification for one in the gym.

Boiling it down, the concierge isn't a guarantee, it's a long haul to have it by the mail box. There are access points that the AED is between (stairs and elevators). Once you call 911 you will be committed on the phone with prearrival instructions and we could never put something out that says call the concierge before calling 911. There is lot to consider including what someone can process when they find a loved one dead. There is no perfect place to have it. 

POR Director admits harassment of Owners of Unit 812 and Provides Another Act of Harassment

Per Mr. Angry's suggestion below, I have a new hobby.  It is called "tit for tat."  I give them back what they dish out but they get it back in this and other social media forums which we are personally inviting special folks at some very interesting locations to read. We are mad as hell and will not take your harassment any more, Poul David Rasmussen and Jerry Biggart.  You can't re-write your dismal history but you can reform your evil ways.  Why not try the high road for a change?

Look below at how Poul David Rasmussen handed our email off to Jerry to respond to--and how Jerry trapped himself very neatly with his response. Hmmm...is Dave playing Jerry now, too?

From: Poul David Rasmussen 

Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:17 AM
To: Undisclosed recipients:
Subject: The POR now has an AED on the 6th floor in the gym

POR Residents:

 We wanted to make you aware of the fact that we now have an AED on site here at the POR (automated external defibrillator

It’s on the 6th floor in the fitness room:

_____________

From: Owner of Unit 812
Date: July 26, 2015 at 6:42:55 AM CDT
To: 'Poul David Rasmussen'
Subject: RE: The POR now has an AED on the 6th floor in the gym

It should be in the second floor lobby inside the glass doors where it can be seen by all residents, not just those of you using the sixth floor. People won’t read or remember your email notice of location.  Plus concierge could carry it to the crisis if called when it is a two person event.  Concierges should know what it is and where it is; they don’t know these things by osmosis.  It should be clear what people are to do about calling 911 first also. 

_____________________________

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: J. Biggart <axswngr@att.net>
To: Owner of Unit 812
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2015 7:22 AM
Subject: Fwd: The POR now has an AED on the 6th floor in the gym

What is wrong with you? Only you two could make the addition of an AED in the middle of the building a negative. Only you two... Another fine example of how you poor souls are being harassed. Give me a break... Get a new hobby.

The Only Way to Stop the Intentional Harassment of the Owners of Unit 812 is for Condo President Poul David Rasmussen to Resign.

HARVEY A. KURTZ ESQ.

106 WEST SEEBOTH STREET UNIT 812

MILWAUKEE, WI   53204

July 16, 2015

Laura Windpassinger, Property Manager Prospect Management LLC 5645 N. Green Bay Avenue Milwaukee, WI   53209-4437

Re:         July 19, 2015, Hearing

Dear Ms. Windpassinger:

This will advise you that I will not attend the hearing scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on Sunday, July 19, 2015, in the Board Room.  My reasons for not attending are two:

First, the initial notice of fine assessment issued by the POR Residential Committee is not in compliance with the applicable rules in so many significant ways that it cannot be considered a valid notice of fine assessment under our Rules and that makes appealing it a pointless exercise. The initial assessment of a fine by the Committee or Board is required to state the Rules alleged to have been violated and this one does not.  The initial assessment is required to describe in full the substantial evidence of Rule violation on which it is based and this one does not.  The initial assessment is required to be issued in accordance with the Bylaws and this one was not. The Board and Residential Committees are prohibited from discriminating in the administration of the Rules and in this case there is flagrant discrimination in favor of a third participant and his pet who were fully involved in the same incident.

Second, the “appeal hearing” is rendered totally meaningless because I have received absolutely no evidence pertaining to the alleged violation of an unknown Rule.  I presume that “evidence” will magically appear at the hearing; I will have not seen it before; the rules adopted for the hearing specifically do not allow me to ask any questions; so, bang the gavel, my appeal is over, and I lose. Well, it might happen that way but I won’t be there to suffer through it.

The fact that I have received no evidence of any kind, to review, much less the “substantial evidence” required by the Rules is astonishing.  It is also the same thing that happened in the last fake fine assessment they tried using to harass me last January. There was no evidence then, either, at least none was provided to me before the scheduled hearing date.

Even the rules that Mr. Rasmussen has imposed on this hearing to help him be sure he wins (i.e., the “Loudermill rules,” which are clearly explained on Wikipedia) specifically state the following:

In advance of a Loudermill rules hearing, the employee must be given a Loudermill letter–i.e. specific written notice of the charges and an explanation of the evidence so that the employee can provide a meaningful response and an opportunity to correct factual mistakes in the investigation and to address the type of discipline being considered.

In summary, I deny the validity of the May 11, 2015, notice of fine assessment on the grounds that it does not meet the standards clearly set out in Association Rules and is, therefore, invalid from the beginning. 

I deny the validity of the so-called appeal hearing because it does not provide me full Due Process rights and no evidence has been provided to me for review prior to the scheduled hearing date. 

As a result of the defective initial fine assessment and the failure of the appeal hearing process to protect my Due Process rights I have determined that attending the appeal hearing on Sunday, January 19, 2015, in the Board Room is not in the best interest of me or my family.  The next section makes us heartsick but we have no choice but to pursue relief from this torture as fully and completely as is humanly possible, starting with these demands:

Demands

The chronic, illegal, intentional harassment of my wife and me has been continuous now for over six months.  We are finished waiting for it to stop.  With this letter we are making our demands to bring this illegal behavior by Poul David Rasmussen and his cronies on the Association’s Residential Committee and Board of Directors to an end.  Our demands are as follows:

1.      The ongoing intentional harassment of myself and my wife, clearly intended to drive us out of the quiet enjoyment of our home at the Point on the River, shall cease and desist immediately. 

2.      Poul David Rasmussen and Jerry Biggart shall resign their offices in the Condo Association government not later than 11:00 am on the morning of July 19, 2015. 

3.      Damages to us in the amount of $500,000 for the harm already done to us shall be paid not later than July 31, 2015.  We will demand additional damages if we are forced to sell our home and move out of the Point on the River in order to obtain relief from the emotional distress being intentionally inflicted upon us by the officers of the Point on the River Condo Association. Those damages will include sales commission; the difference in price paid and fair market value if we must sell at less than cost to escape this hostile environment. Any cleaning, moving, and storage costs incurred.

4.      Punitive damages in the amount of $1.0 Million Dollars shall be paid by July 31, 2015, unless the resignations of Poul David Rasmussen and Jerry Biggart from all Association positions of trust (Residential Committee in particular) have been finalized by that date. 

More detail is included with the copy of this letter posted on my blog which is located at:  www.condolifeinthecity.blogspot.com

Very truly yours,

Harvey A. Kurtz, Esq.

Exhibit A:  Details of Defects in the Initial Fine Assessment

1.       It does not state the Rule or Rules that Dr. Carbollo and I are accused of breaking.

2.       It does not state the date as of which the fine must be paid.

3.       It does not set forth the substantial evidence of the offense giving rise to the fine and no evidence has yet been provided to me.

4.       The validity of the fine has not been verified.  I must receive written proof that there was a duly called meeting of the Residential Committee at which the fine was approved; I need to know who was present; who voted; and how they voted. This information is crucial to any due process appeal because Jerry Biggart must be disqualified from voting on any matter that causes me detriment because his past vile behavior including his public written threat issued to me on the POR discussion group on August 18, 2014. 

5.       The fine assessment is required by the Bylaws to have been approved by the Board of Directors.  I have received no proof that this necessary action has taken place. This is important for two reasons.  The first reason is that Jerry Biggart is one of the Association’s three directors and he must be disqualified from voting on any matter against me.  That only leaves two eligible directors to have voted on approval of the fine.  It is essential to my due process rights that I know what the Board did, and by whose votes the Board’s action was decided.

The second reason that the Board’s action in this matter must be fully disclosed is even more compelling.  The act of fining two pet owners for a “pet incident,” which is what the Residential Committee did, violates the covenant that all unit holders at the Point have with the Association, i.e., that the Point on the River is a pet friendly condominium.  This covenant cannot be changed by decree of Poul David Rasmussen or by Rule. It can only be changed by a super majority vote (two-thirds vote) of all unit holders.  For a due process appeal I need to know what the Board did about the violation of this covenant by the Residential Committee and how each member voted.

6.       The Residential Committee failed to fine one of the three participants in the “incident involving pets.”  This is likely a violation of the Rule that prohibits discrimination in the enforcement of the Rules.  I need full disclosure of all aspects of the investigation of this “incident” in order to address the question of prohibited discrimination in application of the Rules.

Exhibit B:  Details of Defects in the Appeal Hearing

1.       The Loudermill Rules (discussed below) adopted by Mr. Rasmussen for this hearing state:  In advance of a Loudermill rules hearing, the employee must be given a Loudermill letter–i.e. specific written notice of the charges and an explanation of the evidence so that the employee can provide a meaningful response and an opportunity to correct factual mistakes in the investigation and to address the type of discipline being considered.

Our Condo Rules require the same full disclosure of the evidence and the substantial basis for the fine. That disclosure is required to be part of the initial fine assessment. It was never made.

2.       The terms and conditions are rigged against the person appealing so the person appealing has no realistic hope of prevailing. Here is an example of how the “rigging” works, courtesy of the “Loudermill Rules”:

At the hearing challenges to the validity of the Residential Committee’s ability to issue a violation will be ruled out of order.

This rule is intended to say is that that challenges to the validity of the initial violation notice will be ruled out of order.  I have received a totally defective fine assessment but it cannot be discussed at my appeal hearing. That is not Due Process.

Background on Loudermill rules:  Government employers won the right to severely limit the due process rights of the government employee in the first “partial” due process hearing in a case called Loudermill v. Cleveland decided by the U. S. Supreme Court. Those restrictive rules providing only partial due process rights were upheld by the Supreme Court on the basis that the same government employee was guaranteed by law a full due process hearing if the employee lost his “employment property” (meaning the employee was ultimately terminated).  The rules for the partial due process hearing have come to be known as the “Loudermill Rules.” So, our leaders came up with the idea of using the Loudermill Rules for the appeal hearings under the POR Association Rules because they were familiar with them and they allowed Poul David Rasmussen to control every aspect of the appeal hearing (especially the results). Plus they could be as sloppy issuing fines as they wanted to be and nobody could challenge them.  Yikes.

The problem with using the Loudermill Rules is that they are rules for a partial due process hearing and were determined to be constitutional by the Supreme Court because the affected government employee was already guaranteed by law a full due process hearing if he or she actually lost their “employment property.”

How is that different from the situation at the POR and why are the Loudermill Rules unconstitutional when used in an Association appeal hearing?  We unit holders at the Point do not have that second guaranteed-by-law opportunity for a full due process hearing.  We lose our property (the amount of the fine) immediately upon losing in the appeal hearing.  This means the U. S. constitution requires (since Condo Associations are treated as governments under the law) that we be afforded full due process rights in our “final” appeal before the loss of property.  If I can’t make the argument that the initial fine is invalid because it does not comply with the Rules my due process rights are canceled out and I have no hope of success.

3.       The notice of the hearing describes my alleged Rule violation completely differently than it is described in the initial notice of assessment.  This is an egregious violation of the Rules.  It is the clearest possible illustration of intentional harassment you could possibly ask for.  It would be laughable if it was not so insanely aggressive and frightening that both my wife and I have lost sleep and suffered significant emotional distress at the thought that our Condo Association officers are willing to go this far out on a limb simply to harass us out of our home.

Dr. Carbollo and I were assessed fines for “an incident involving our pets.”

When I complained on June 8^th about the defects in the initial fine assessment and complained that it clearly violated the covenant POR unit holders have under the Bylaws that the POR is “pet friendly” I got no response.  However, someone must have read and believed my pet-friendly covenant violation discussion. 

They changed the description of my alleged Rule violation in the hearing notice to a dog bite on April 11, 2015 to the pet of Dr. Carbollo by my dog, Bailey.  So the appeal hearing is now for an appeal of something that never happened.  One thing I absolutely know for sure is that Bailey and Rudy never saw each other on April 11.  Here is where that leaves me:  I don’t have the right to challenge the initial fine assessment for consistency with the Rules but they have a right to cover up their carelessness by rewriting a defective initial fine assessment to suit their whim.  

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive ...Updated July 8, 2015

Here is an excerpt from our HOA President's report on the financial status of the POR Home Owners Association as of the end of the first quarter of 2015:

"From: Poul David Rasmussen [mailto:gto1973@me.com]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2015 12:22 PM
To: Laura Windpassinger; David DuVergey; Point on The River
Subject: POR 2015 Q1 Financial and Project Updates

Fellow POR Owners:

FINANCIALS:

The attached Financials summarize performance for the first quarter of 2015. ...

On the negative side, significant variances included legal expenses which were $6,522.96 greater than budget due to a dispute regarding a fine with an owner.  The fine has been paid and the Board believes the dispute is over.  ... "

The point of this post is to alert you to the fact that Poul David Rasmussen finds lying to all of you, as demonstrated in the quoted language above, to be acceptable behavior.  What other lies is he feeding you?  Who is watching the books and accounts?  You can't count on Prospect Management to do that. They are as afraid of contradicting Mr. Rasmussen as you are.  What I see going on, I don't like. What I don't see, which is most of the stuff, is what I think is most frightening. We need to be able to trust our leaders to be telling us the truth, openly and transparently.  If we can't do that we need to elect different leaders.

Here are the lies stated directly or indirectly by our President:

• Lie:  The legal expenses were due to a dispute regarding a fine with an owner. 
• Truth:  The legal expenses were due to the failure of the Board to adhere to the Rules and the Bylaws when the Board attempted to fine an owner based on a non-existent complaint.  No fine was ever issued against the owner in compliance with the Rules.  The owner donated $50 to the Association to stop being dunned for the improper fine since the dunning notice was very upsetting to the owners when it arrived in the mail every month.
• Lie:  The implication is that the cost of protecting the Board from the consequences of its own bad acts was $6,522.96 because that is how much expenditures exceeded the budgeted amount for legal expenses for the quarter. 
• Truth:  In fact, the Board also spent $2,000 of the budgeted amount to cover up its wrongdoing so the actual total was $8,533.96.
• Lie:  The strong implication is that Harvey Kurtz and Yvonne Larme are somehow responsible for the wasting of this $8,533.96 spent in connection with their insistence that the Board follow its own Rules.
• Truth: No one but Poul David Rasmussen, Robert Popp, and Lynn Tarrence are responsible for the Board's actions in January 2015.  If the Board had followed the clearly stated procedures in the Rules none of this money would need to have been spent. No proper fine assessment was ever made.
• Lie:  Also implicit in Mr. Rasmussen's email is that the expenditure of the $8,533.96 was a proper expenditure by this Board.
• Truth:  When all members of the Board are subject to an owner's formal complaint that they broke a whole host of Rules when issuing an invalid fine assessment containing profound lies and misrepresentations that Board needs to be very, very careful.  In this case, the main consequence of the legal expenditures was a new Rule that chills the rights of all Residents to seek redress from decisions of the Board that are detrimental to them.  This new Rule was adopted solely to chill the rights of the owners challenging the bad acts of the Board.  They didn't pay thousands of dollars for a necessary rule.  They paid thousands of dollars to prevent us from taking the risk of suing them.  Is that a proper expense for the Association?  I don't know for sure.  I think they needed a "special prosecutor" type of person or persons to oversee their response to our complaint including spending money to cover up their Rule violations. 
• Lie:  The Board believes the dispute is over....
• Truth: At the moment Mr. Rasmussen was composing this email he already knew that he had issued another defective fine assessment against our household and was asking us to agree to an appeal hearing date before giving us the evidence on which the alleged violation was based. This story is nearly unbelievable and will be discussed in a subsequent posting.  Truth is, indeed, stranger than fiction at the POR.  

Anyway, I know that it is common practice for attorneys to report their time in six-minute or ten-minute increments and to describe what they did in the time spent to justify the large amounts charged.  I decided I needed to see the legal invoices to see what services were really provided.

I checked Wisconsin Condominium Law because I expected resistance to my request for copies of the invoices.  But, as is often the case for my side of things here at the Point, the law is completely on my side.  Section 703.20 of Wisconsin Statutes Annotated (discussed farther down  in this post) states that condominium owners are entitled to review every single invoice for any expense of the Association.  I made my request in the first week of June but got no response.  I repeated the request last week.  I didn't get the invoices but I got the information below from Ms. Windpassinger.  If she is "terminated" in the next few days you will know why.  She is caught between the state law and Mr. Rasmussen's ideas of right and wrong.  I understand that this is a tough place to be stuck!

(Note:  I did receive the invoices on July 8, 2015, from Laura Windpassinger.  They tell an interesting story of fighting to the death to avoid the consequences of bad acts instead of merely correcting them. One thing for sure is that this lawyer is representing the Board, not the Association and its members. That only makes a difference when the Board acts like ours does; normally, a Board would act in the best interest of its members and this gap would not be quite so visible.  I won't publish the invoices on this blog because it is read by many people outside POR ownership group.  I assume you can get them for yourself with an email to Ms. Windpassinger.)   

Here is what the ledger of the Association said on July 1 about legal counsel expenses for the first half of this year. 

07/01/2015 4:49 PM General Ledger Page: CH 1

PO01 First Place Condo Assoc

For Dates 01/01/2015 to 07/31/2015

For Accounts 6520-0560 to 6520-0560 Prospect Management Company

Account Type Reference Date Description Debit Amount Credit Amount Balance

6520-0560 Legal Counsel Fees Beginning Balance 0.00

AVC 00095157 02/12/2015 Whyte Hirshboeck Dud 152.00

AVC 00097914 03/19/2015 Whyte Hirshboeck Dud 3,078.00

AVC 00098733 03/31/2015 Whyte Hirshboeck Dud 53.48

AVC 00098734 03/31/2015 Whyte Hirshboeck Dud 4,490.48

AVC 00100825 05/11/2015 Whyte Hirshboeck Dud 760.00

AVC 00100734 05/18/2015 Dave Rasmussen           3,000.00

Account Total 11,533.96 0.00 11,533.96

Ending Balance 11,533.96

Entity Totals 11,533.96 0.00 11,533.96

These numbers virtually scream for explanation, don't they? Since the name of the law firm is misspelled I  wonder if PMC even received the original invoices.  Wouldn't that be something? And why, in the first place, didn't this matter get turned over to the insurance company, where the deductible is only $2,500, if it really did pertain to a conflict with an owner?  Maybe we won't get answers from the current leadership while they are in office, but maybe we should consider assessing them fines adding up to $8,533.96 once they are out of office, you know, for breaking the Rules.

Here is the law I mentioned that gives us the right to see the invoices for legal services.  As I read it, every expenditure the Board makes affects the common elements.  If there were no common elements there wouldn't be a condo association..

703.20  Books of receipts and expenditures.

(1)  Record keeping; availability for examination. An association shall keep detailed, accurate records using standard bookkeeping procedures of the receipts and expenditures affecting the common elements, specifying and itemizing the maintenance and repair expenses of the common elements and any other expenses incurred. The records and the vouchers authorizing the payments shall be available for examination by the unit owners at convenient hours.

The tragedy in all this is that we have to beg for information from someone entrusted with protecting and preserving the value of our investment in the Point on the River.  I hope this post causes you to raise more questions than ever.

Please join the group that is committed to "finding a better way to live at the Point on the River."  We are encouraging persons who share this commitment to run for membership on the Residential Committee and we are committed to supporting each other against attacks we can expect from the current leadership.  (hkurtz@ameritech.net)

Best of Mr.-- Angry Part One

In this blog I am posting an email that I came across when organizing my extensive POR email files in anticipation of a continuing fight to live here in peace since the harassment never stops.  Many of you will remember this posting because you were shocked by it.  I was scared.  

Jerry Biggart posted it on August 18, 2014, after I scolded Dave on the POR Discussion Group for his harsh attack on another Resident who was making her points in a very reasonable manner.

Here it is in its unedited glory:

From: J. Biggart <axswngr@gmail.com>

To: "harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com" <harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com>
Cc: "thepor@googlegroups.com" <thepor@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: {POR_discussion} Re: Garage Electricity

Harvey - I don't know what kind of organic brain syndrome you have but tell your doc that it's time to adjust your medications again. You perpetuate the very things you gripe about. You suck as a human being and I feel so sorry for you and everyone around you. 

Have a miserable week - 

Jerry 

On Aug 18, 2014, at 7:27 PM, Harvey Kurtz <harvey.kurtz75@gmail.com> wrote:

Dave:  Your reply to Megan Taylor is offensive and unacceptable.  Ideas can be discussed without such nastiness and profanity, and it helps to stay on subject and not introduce information that a resident does not know as evidence of the superiority of your ideas.  How can we accept the accuracy of any of your comments if you are so adamantly in favor of an idea being put to vote that you have to adopt such an inappropriately personal and nasty tone in your comments.  Why do you feel you need to respond when you don't, in fact, have anything to say?  I am tired of this weak imitation of the true nastiness present in Mr. Angry's (Biggart) emails to residents.  This has to stop, now.  If you are this burned out, then quit. But don't embarrass all of us who voted for you by this kind of behavior towards us residents, including Megan.  You need to apologize, and do it in a nice way for a change.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 10:41:56 PM UTC-5, Dave Rasmussen wrote:

Megan:

My responses below.

On Sunday, August 17, 2014 6:57:22 PM UTC-5, Megan Taylor wrote:

Dave sent an e-mail out to everyone this evening regarding potential electrical outlets in the garage. Long e-mail short, the Association would spend $10,500 to tap into the common element electricity to run distribution panels to the 1st, 3rd and 5th garage floors.

If people want to elect to have this done then why don't they pay the $10,500?  If later on someone elects to have an outlet then pro-rate that cost; devise a formula.

I suggest you read our condo docs.  Look at the definitions about the General Common Elements.  

And while people who elect to pay extra to get the power in their parking stall arguably benefit the most, everyone benefits as this is an enhancement to the property that makes it potentially more desirable for prospective buyers.  For someone with an electric car for example, it could be a deal-maker.

Think about our gym here on the 6th floor.  I'm sure a ton of people here don't use it--some because they choose not to exercise at all while some join a local gym.  If I took a poll to close it down, sell the equipment and save money on the heating/cooling, cleaning, electricity and maintenance and sell it as storage lockers, I'd probably get a majority that would say, "Go ahead I don't use it anyway."

But it's an amenity that makes the POR more desirable to many potential buyers here.  So while you may not use it, the person buying your condo might find that an attractive part of living here.  I can't tell you the number of times I've been working out there and either Dana Karow or another realtor will bring prospective buyers into the room.  The people nearly always comment something to the effect, "Wow this is really nice".  They may never use it, but they seem to appreciate that it's a desirable amenity that enhances their investment considerations.

Why don't we FINISH the incomplete projects in the building first before we take on new ones? Balconies are in dire need of repair, the northern stairwell is still unfinished, the second hallway is still unsecure from the east stairwell into the hallway, and the list goes on...

I would not characterize the balconies as in need of "dire" repair.  They have rust on the top of a lot of the railings and some of the supporting structures.  We are in the process of soliciting bids to assess them from reputable engineering firms.  There is no need to rush this project as there simply is no imminent threat to life nor long-term property damage.  By the way, I don't have a balcony.  I have a terrace.  The balconies look just fine from where I sit.  So why should I have to pay for fixing the rust on other owners' balconies?

Answer:  Because it's a Limited Common Element and the owners who have rust problems should not have to endure them forever just because some of us are not effected or don't mind looking at rust.

About that "Northern Stairwell".  Funny you bring that up.  We spent about $800 to put locks on the doors in that stairwell largely because you and another owner on that end complained that you felt unsafe with only one locked door separating the outside world from your hallway.  We assessed the security threat and concluded it was quite low, but The Board agreed the unlocked doors were inconsistent with the security for the rest of the building.  So we found a cost-effective solution and implemented it.

Now imagine if I would have taken a POR-wide poll on that:

"Should we spend $800 to put locks on five doors on Megan's end of the building or just leave it as it's been for the past seven years?"

As for the security "hole" on the second floor, again that's something that's on our list, just not seen as a high priority right now.

And speaking of "the list going on...." how in the hell would you even know what's on the list?  We have one.  We review it every week.  We enhance and re-prioritize it every week.  That's how you got your locks.  You're welcome.

Why don't we wait to see if the projected FOE savings materialize before we continue to spend more money we do not have?

FOE.  Really?  You want to go back there again? The vote was something like 114-6, remember?  You also said we (The POR) were "Going to turn into Detroit" meaning we going bankrupt.  

Frankly Megan, the only thing bankrupt around here is your capacity to add intelligent, fact-based input to our cause here.  I am by now used to your bombast and hyperbole and find it tiresome.  So let's agree that I'll continue to put in a few hundred hours of work here again this year protecting and enhancing your investment and you continue to take petty potshots at me and Jerry and Lynn for not meeting your ill-informed expectations.

The last word can be yours.  Good night.

Megan Taylor

#220

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This discussion group is restricted to residents of "The Point On The River" (POR) condo complex in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The POR resident discussion group" group.

Let's Find a New Direction

My hope is that the Board has learned a few things in our challenges of its actions.

As has been pointed out to me, they obviously learned that a consent action, such as the new Legal Fee Rule, has to be signed by all three current directors in order to be valid.  When I pointed this out in December--that the Transfer Fee Rule was not properly executed by the three directors then in office--the answer wasn't a simple "thanks, we will fix that right away."  It was "so what are your motives in raising this question, you $%^hole?"  Actually, as I said at the outset, my reason was to have the Board follow the clear legal rules in order to avoid future fights over the validity of a Board action which I supported.

If the Board has learned that it needs to read the Bylaws and Rules, and follow them, that would be an amazing accomplishment and my wife and I could rest easy living here because, to our knowledge, we are totally into following rules that make sense and are fairly applied.  We are, however, not inclined to feel any trust whatsoever that this miracle might have taken place.  We have very substantial undisclosed reasons for believing that two of three of our Residential Committee members cannot be trusted, period.

So what should we do?  Here is my plan.

1.     First of all, I know this blog is bad for the Condo Association and Unit Owners and property values.  I also know that this blog is the reason we are still here.  With almost three thousand page readers it seems clear that people outside this community are looking in.  I will refresh the blog and take out the negativity concerning our experience with the Board President, Board, and Residential Committee if and when we receive a letter (or letters) signed by the three Residential Committee members and Robert Popp (individually or together) stating clearly and unequivocally the following:

I, ______________________________ , will not harass the Owners of Unit 812 at the Point on the River or participate in any harassment of them in any manner whatsoever.  Harassment includes, without limitation, any comments in condo wide communications or any other action by me that interferes with their right to quiet enjoyment of their home at the Point. 

2.   I, _____________________________________________ , promise that  any actions taken by me as a member of the Board of Directors of the Association or as a member of the Residential Committee against the Owners of Unit 812 will be taken in strict compliance with the language and intent of the Association’s Declaration, Bylaws, and Rules and Regulations.

What is so strange about this request is that it only asks that we be treated as the law requires them to treat us.  Nothing more.  Isn't it strange that we have to bargain for this from our elected officers? That is what I want to repair in the actions steps, below.

2.    Second, I am going to spend the next several months blogging about what our current governing documents require and how they should be adjusted to prevent forever the recurrence of the one man rule that is ruining life here for some us (at least two of us, but others have expressed similar concerns privately).  .

3.  At the same time I am going to try as hard as I can to cause the engaged readers of this blog to write collectively a platform of positions and values for a "reform" slate of three candidates to run on in the next election of Residential Committee candidates.  I have tons of ideas arising out of the mess I have found myself in these last three months and I know others have great ideas as well.

4.  Finally, I will, together with others who wish to join me, support and encourage persons who feel motivated to run for office but who have concerns about it.  One of our main commitments will be to make sure that the next Residential Committee will be all new people who are committed to the platform we will have prepared. 

I hope you will join in this effort to restore good government to the POR.  Everyone's participation is needed and will be respected and appreciated.