It Sounds Like Dodging $1.3 Million Questions With Personal Attacks Is The Strategy. What Am I Missing?
175 E Delaware Place HOA Technology Committee Chair Jacob Lopata responded to my analysis of the $1.3 million cable contract with vague accusations of “distortions and demonstrable falsehoods” while failing to identify a single specific error. Instead, he called me a liar through official Association communications, potentially exposing the HOA to legal risk and demonstrating the same judgment lapses that led to locking residents into a $1,836-per-unit bill for unwanted basic cable. Perhaps more importantly, his response confirms this is legitimate public discourse about governance decisions, not personal attack.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
Technology Committee Chair Jacob Lopata responded to my analysis of the $1.3 million cable contract in the latest HOA newsletter. His response tells you everything you need to know about how some officials handle accountability.
But he didn’t respond alone. Board Chair Scott Timmerman also weighed in, claiming my article was “inaccurate” while citing misleading statistics about survey support for the contract. Together, their responses demonstrate exactly the kind of accountability-averse behavior that led to this questionable procurement decision in the first place.
What Timmerman and Lopata Actually Said
First, Board Chair Timmerman opens the newsletter by calling out my article and continuing the same pattern of exaggeration and survey misrepresentation that justified the contract in the first place:
Scott Timmerman
“The Technology Committee Chair was recently the subject of an inaccurate email blast to a large number of owners about the renewal of the bulk Comcast cable contract, which he addresses in this Newsletter below. A survey of owners was conducted with high turnout that resulted in the decision that was made to continue with a bulk cable contract. Although many on the Technology Committee would have liked to move away from a bulk cable TV contract, the Committee did the right thing and made a decision in line with the data. The survey results indicated that 77% of residents still use cable exclusively or in combination with streaming services, and that 76% prefer to continue with a bulk cable contract for now.”
Then, in his Committee Update, Lopata called me out by name:
Jacob Lopata
“On July 20th of this month, Drew McManus, a unit owner in our building, published an article on his personal website regarding the recent renewal of the HOA bulk cable contract. A link to this article was sent to an email list that includes a large number of our fellow residents. The piece is filled with distortions and demonstrable falsehoods and implied that I deliberately misled the board to win approval of the contract renewal.
I feel strongly that his attempt to confuse and create an atmosphere of distrust amongst the ownership, not to mention his slander of me, must be called out. I do not intend to provide a point-by-point rebuttal to every lie and accusation here as they are too numerous. However, I will make myself available to anyone who has concerns or questions regarding the renewal of the bulk cable contract that have arisen as a result of the piece.
Towards this end I can be reached at jake.lopata@gmail.com“
The Art of Saying Nothing While Saying Everything
Lopata claims my article contains “distortions and demonstrable falsehoods” but (and here’s the tell) he doesn’t demonstrate a single one. Not one specific factual error. Not one incorrect survey percentage. Not one misquoted industry statistic.
Instead, he says the alleged falsehoods are “too numerous” to address while simultaneously calling me a liar.
That’s not how fact-based discussion works.
If something is demonstrably false, you demonstrate it. If survey data is misrepresented, you show the correct interpretation. If industry statistics are wrong, you provide the right ones.
This is precisely the type of judgment being called into question. Would you trust Board leadership who appears to confuse personal grievances with responsible use of Association communication channels, especially when making $1.3 million procurement recommendations?
Public Officials Get Public Scrutiny
Here’s what Lopata’s response actually accomplished: it confirmed that analyzing how committee chairs present data to secure $1.3 million contracts is exactly the kind of public discourse our community needs.
He responded in his official capacity, in the official newsletter via a committee update, to the same residents who received my analysis.
That’s not the behavior of someone wronged by slander. That’s a public official engaging in public debate about public decisions involving our money.
Good. At least that last part is how this should work.
The Challenge Stands
Every claim in my analysis was sourced from the Technology Committee’s own survey data, publicly available meeting records, or cited industry research. If Lopata believes any of these facts are incorrect, I invite him to identify them specifically.
But here’s what he can’t dispute: only 29.07% of survey respondents explicitly preferred staying with Comcast, yet this was presented to the board as “more than 70% wanting Comcast in some form.”
The math is the math. The presentation and Lopata’s behavior is on record along with being recorded in the meeting video.
A Simple Request
To residents who received Lopata’s response: ask yourself why someone confident in their position needs to make vague accusations rather than specific corrections. Ask why “demonstrable falsehoods” go undemonstrated.
Then ask Lopata directly:
- Which facts were wrong?
- Which survey results were misrepresented?
- Which statistics were inaccurate?
- Did he not cut off board members who questioned his recommendations, on the record, mid-meeting?”
If he can’t provide public answers those questions, you’ll know everything you need to know about the strength of his position, and the quality of the decision-making that committed you to $1,836 per unit for basic cable most of you will never watch.
The contract stands. The questions remain. And, apparently, so does the playbook:
- Deflect with personal attacks to undermine those with observations.
- Claim errors without identifying them.
- Hope residents stop asking uncomfortable questions about how their money is spent.
Timmerman and Lopata may consider this discussion over. Residents don’t have to. Ask your questions. Demand answers. Hold your leadership accountable.
Use the form below to share your questions, concerns, or feedback directly with Board Chair Scott Timmerman and Technology Committee Chair Jacob Lopata about the $1.3 million Comcast contract and their response to public scrutiny. You message will go to the email addresses they provided in the Association Newsletter. Be respectful, concise, and clear in articulating the negative impact it has had on you and your fellow homeowners. You are welcome to use the example language as-is, but feel free to personalize the example message before you send.