Drew: May 6, 2025

Dear Scott,

To ensure clarity and maintain a constructive dialogue for all homeowners, I want to reiterate the critical need for specific answers to the serious security concerns arising from the recent burglary.

While I acknowledge your reference to the ongoing Chicago Police Department investigation, it’s crucial that you clearly explain exactly which questions you can’t answer because of it, and more importantly, why. Simply saying the police are investigating as a reason to hide information about our HOA’s internal business puts our community and its residents at unnecessary risk.

I agree that owners should attend as many board meetings as possible and as I’m sure you’re aware because I signed-in as an attendee, I attended the most recent board meeting alongside several other concerned homeowners in attendance. Unfortunately, these questions are submitted because they were not addressed during the April meeting and your actions actively limited that discussion.

When fellow board members requested additional information on the reasons why you proposed purchasing a $51,000 key management system and recommended a 30-day period for a standing committee to further research the necessity and justification for this significant expenditure, you became increasingly hostile. You ultimately attempted to shut down their questions by asking them “what can you learn in 30 days you can’t learn right now?”

This dismissive statement, directed at your fellow board members exercising their due diligence, is deeply concerning. It projects a resistance to scrutiny, a lack of respect for differing viewpoints within the board, and potentially, a lack of a well-articulated justification for the expenditure itself.

Unanswered Questions:

1. Security System Failure: What specific failure in the current key or access control system prompted its replacement? If a written report, internal memo, or consultant recommendation exists, please provide it.
2. Disclosure to Owners: Why was this failure not disclosed to owners prior to approving the $51,000 expenditure? Owners deserve to know what vulnerabilities existed and what the board is doing to address them.
3. Security Audit: Why didn’t the Association initiate an independent third-party audit of the building’s key management, fob controls, and unit access procedures before purchasing a $51,000 digital key management service? Is an audit currently underway and if not, why and when will one be initiated?
4. Additional Break-ins: Was there any evidence that the former employee suspected in this burglary accessed or stole from other units? For example, were any personal items belonging to residents found in their locker, work area, or possession? Have there been any other known or suspected unauthorized unit entries, thefts, or related incidents within the last 12 months?
5. Key Copying Risk: Has the management company conducted an investigation into whether master keys or unit keys may have been copied or retained by current or former staff? If not, why not? If so, what were the findings?
6. Management Accountability and Contract Renewal: What actions or retraining have been implemented at the management company for the senior staff who oversaw key security? Who specifically held responsibility for this area, and what consequences have they faced? Please also explain why you as board president and serving as chair of the contract renewal committee, decline to initiate a competitive bidding process for management services despite this serious breach in security under the current management company’s oversight. Why should owners have confidence in renewing a contract with a vendor currently under scrutiny for a preventable failure in securing resident units using a no-bid award process?
7. Rekeying Costs: Given that the management company is contractually and professionally obligated to secure unit access, has the board asked the company to reimburse or fully cover the cost of rekeying all residential units? If not, why has this not been pursued? Please also identify the estimated total cost of building-wide rekeying. Do you believe owners or the HOA bear that burden or is that the responsibility of the management company?
8. Resident Notification Policy: Will the board adopt a written policy requiring residents to be notified within 24 hours of any verified security breach affecting private units? Please confirm whether this will be scheduled for a vote at the next meeting.

Addressing Your Points:

1. CPD Investigation: For each question you deem unanswerable due to the ongoing investigation, please state the specific question and provide a clear explanation of the direct conflict that prevents disclosure at this time.
2. HOA Maintenance Employee: While the termination is noted, it does not address the systemic failures that allowed the “improper entry” to occur, which is a matter of internal HOA and management company responsibility.
3. Board Meetings: The gravity and specificity of these security concerns warrant clear, written responses for all homeowners, especially given your resistance to similar questions during the meeting and your decision to end discussion.

Residents deserve clarity on whether the former employee accessed other units or if a broader key copying risk exists, a risk created by failures in security protocols under the Board’s oversight.

The possibility of residents being victimized without even knowing it living in unknowingly compromised homes due to these avoidable failures demands full transparency to confirm their safety and security. Furthermore, these actions are necessary to fulfill the board’s fiduciary duties to mitigate the Association’s increasing legal exposure from failing to inform owners of these critical risks or if they were victims.