Election Integrity Concerns Remain Unaddressed
In a recent email exchange with HOA Board President Scott Timmerman regarding the 2024 board election, it has become clear that the election process remains plagued by serious unresolved issues. Election errors damage the building’s reputation, raising concerns about poor governance and increasing the risk of litigation. This heightened risk negatively affects property values and leads to long-term community damage. Failing to address these issues now risks further harm.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
While I’m happy to report a small amount of progress has been made, including identifying and correcting an error in my original analysis, the conversation has revealed a new problem that further undermines the credibility of the election results. Unfortunately, Timmerman has chosen to deflect attention from these broader concerns rather than pursue the thorough investigation owners deserve.
Acknowledging An Analysis Error And Uncovering A New Issue
Correction: In a previous analysis of the election data, I incorrectly identified Ballot 48 as Ballot 51. This mistake, while inadvertent, does not diminish the validity of broader concerns about election integrity. In fact, this clarification brought to light a new issue discovered by Timmerman: Picker & Associates assigned an incorrect ownership percentage to Ballot 48, resulting in an inflated vote value.
This raises further questions about the accuracy and consistency of Picker & Associates’ overall accuracy and introduces a new need to focus on identifying any other discrepancies recording ownership percentage documentation across all ballots.
Sidestepping The Issues
Instead of addressing the numerous unresolved issues owners have raised, Timmerman’s response focused on attacking the credibility of owners identifying issues with the election process and results.
Timmerman mischaracterized my analysis as intentionally deceptive and driven by ulterior motives, which is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Such statements not only distract from the real issues but any statement along these lines puts the Association at risk of litigation, as they could be considered defamatory.
It is essential to focus on addressing the outstanding election concerns rather than resorting to personal attacks. This approach, deflection through personal criticism, sidesteps the real issues and distracts from the HOA’s obligation to ensure a fair and transparent election process.
Moreover, this is a disservice to owners who expect their concerns to be treated with seriousness and integrity. By attempting to reframe the conversation as a personal dispute, Timmerman risks failing to fulfill his fiduciary duty to instruct Picker & Associates to provide detailed answers and to investigate the systemic issues undermining confidence in the election.
As of the publication of this article, Timmerman has not yet responded to inquiries from my most recent email.
Drew McManus, 11/21/24
Good morning Scott,
Lauren Kabir forwarded me a copy of an email you recently sent to her, thank you for following up regarding the discrepancy with ballot 48. While it is critical to address that error, it is equally essential to investigate the other issues identified to-date by owners regarding the election. Your focus on one issue, while ignoring the remaining concerns, places the Association at risk of litigation and requires immediate attention.
Errors that require answers from Picker & Associates LLC include:
- UNEXPLAINED CHANGE IN TOTAL VOTE COUNT: The total vote count went from 43.99 the night of the election to 45.221 overnight.
This resulted in candidate Salvi Gupta, an owner not on your recommended slate, going from being declared a winner to being replaced by a candidate from your slate that originally lost. The change in vote total has been explained as an Excel spreadsheet “sorting error.” While a “sorting error” in an Excel spreadsheet might shuffle things around, it doesn’t create new votes after ballot processing was closed and the Election Committee was dismissed. What is the reason for the change in total votes? - ALL BALLOTS MISSING TIME STAMPS: Critical security measures mandated by the Association’s “Procedures For The Election Of the Board Of Directors” were ignored, specifically, all ballots should have been time-stamped to prevent fraud by adding ballots after preliminary results released. Not a single ballot in the entire election carried the required time stamp. Why were ballots not time stamped?
- SAMPLE BALLOT COUNTED AS REAL: A sample ballot distributed to owners by you was counted as a real vote. The ballot was assigned 0.11408% ownership, distributed evenly, to each of your 25 recommended candidates. The irregularity was confirmed by finding seven entries with this exact percentage in the spreadsheet, but only six corresponding physical ballots with the amount listed. The Sample Ballot was recorded as Ballot 11. How did a sample ballot get included in the official vote total?
- INCONSISTENT OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE DOCUMENTATION: The review revealed concerning ballot documentation inconsistencies. Others retained the original printed percentages from Picker & Associates. Some ballots showed handwritten ownership percentages. What is the reason for this discrepancy and why did all ballots not include the printed value?
- PROBLEMS WITH RECORDING MULTIPLE-UNIT OWNER VOTES: Some ballots were marked and recorded as “cumulative” for owners with multiple units. These ballots had hand-written percentages and Control Numbers. The original individual unit ballots were missing from the official ballot pack when all individual ballots are supposed to be retained. This breaks the chain of documentation needed for proper vote verification. Other ballots from owners with multiple units are recorded individually. Why did Picker & Associates record some multi-unit owner ballots on a single ballot while destroying the other ballots? Why did Picker & Associates fail to retain all ballots from multi-unit owners?
- INACCURATE REPORTING BETWEEN SPREADSHEET AND RESULTS REPORT: here were two write-in candidates in this election: Sue Kadin and John Wilhelm. Both received one vote from a single unit and while the tabulation spreadsheet from Picker & Associates LLC listed both candidates as receiving 0.1878% support, the certified results document prepared by Picker & Associates lists Wilhelm as receiving 0.1878% but Kadin as 0.0000%. According to a message from the Community Association Manager, Picker & Associates “counted and re-counted” and “the final certified election results have been confirmed.” Given that the second write-in candidate’s vote total was accurately reported, it begs the question: how could one candidate’s results be completely misreported while another remained intact while also asserting that the “only results that count” contain an obvious error?
Your responsibility as HOA president is to ensure the integrity and fairness of the election process. Selectively addressing one issue while dismissing others creates the appearance of bias and undermines trust in the board’s governance.
Have you formally requested the accounting firm to investigate and clarify these additional issues? Failing to do so risks further eroding confidence in the election process a commitment to transparency and accountability.
I urge you to take immediate action to address each of these issues with the same attention you’ve directed to the one issue you’ve addressed to-date. The community deserves a full and impartial investigation, not a selective focus. Ignoring or minimizing valid owner concerns is not consistent with your fiduciary obligations.
Please confirm what steps you will take to ensure a comprehensive review of all identified election issues.
Sincerely,
Drew McManus
Scott Timmerman, 11/21/24
Part of the problem is that you lack credibility with your accusations since you deceptively suggest there are errors where there were no errors. Specifically, you argued Ballot 48 was Ballot 51 in order to support your own narrative despite both ballots being there, and votes for both being accurately recorded. There was an incorrect ownership percentage which I emailed Ralph about, but it resulted in more votes for Lauren and not fewer. Since this fact was opposite of the narrative that you were pushing, you invented other errors out of thin air and threw out baseless accusations. You can address your concerns to Ralph, but it is hard to take them serious when they are not presented factually or in an honest manner. The other error that I see from your accusations is Sue Kadin listed as 0%, which is clearly a typo since the spreadsheet shows she did receive a vote. You can ask Ralph about ballot 11 and why it was included. Maybe the owner added the control number from their actual ballot? I have no way of knowing, and as with the other issues about recording ownership percentages and multiple units, Ralph was the election judge who made decisions about ballot validity (with the Election Committee) and ballot counting. As a reminder, copies of every ballot along with the Excel spreadsheet are available for whatever analysis you or anybody else wants to conduct.
Scott Timmerman
TimmermanHOA@gmail.com
Drew McManus, 11/21/24
Dear Scott,
Thank you for your response. While I appreciate your acknowledgment of the miscalculation regarding ballot 48’s ownership percentage and the recording error for Sue Kadin, these points only underscore deeper problems with Picker & Associates’ handling of the election and fail to explain how they occurred.
Your response, however, seems to focus narrowly on select points and mischaracterizes my analysis in an attempt to deflect attention from the remaining unresolved concerns, which I will list here in simplified format for convenience:
- Unexplained change in total vote count:
The total vote count changed from 43.99 on the night of the election to 45.221 overnight. This adjustment resulted in Salvi Gupta, a candidate not on your recommended slate, going from being declared a winner to being replaced by a candidate from your slate who originally lost. This discrepancy has been explained as an Excel spreadsheet “sorting error.” While a sorting error might reorder data, it does not create new votes after ballot processing was closed and the Election Committee dismissed.
Why did the total vote count increase, and how is this explained beyond a vague “sorting error”? - All Ballots Missing Time Stamps:
The Association’s “Procedures for the Election of the Board of Directors” mandate time stamps on ballots to prevent post-results tampering. Not a single ballot in the entire election carried this required time stamp.
Why were mandated time stamps omitted from all ballots, and who authorized this deviation from procedure? - Sample Ballot Counted As Real:
A sample ballot you distributed to owners was improperly included in the official vote count. The sample ballot was assigned 0.11408% ownership, evenly distributed among your 25 recommended candidates. This irregularity was confirmed when seven entries with this ownership percentage were found in the spreadsheet, but only six corresponding physical ballots were present. The sample ballot was recorded as Ballot 11.
How did a sample ballot become part of the official vote total, and why was it not excluded? - Inconsistent Ownership Percentage Documentation:
The review revealed inconsistencies in how ownership percentages were documented on ballots. Some ballots retained the original printed percentages, while others included handwritten adjustments.
What is the reason for this inconsistency, and why were original percentages not consistently retained? - Problems with Recording Multiple-Unit Owner Votes:
Multi-unit owner votes were inconsistently documented. Some ballots were marked and recorded as “cumulative” with handwritten percentages and Control Numbers, while the original individual unit ballots were missing from the official records. Conversely, other multi-unit owners’ ballots were recorded individually. This discrepancy breaks the chain of documentation critical for verifying votes.
Why did Picker & Associates record some multi-unit owner votes cumulatively while discarding individual ballots, and why were others recorded individually?
Rather than addressing these systemic issues in good faith, your response attributes motives to my articles and attacks my credibility. This seems more like an attempt to deflect and shift focus from the broader election concerns to disputing imagined motivations. Such an approach undermines constructive dialogue and the effort to improve election integrity.
Accountability and Fiduciary Duty
As you know, I have reached out to Ralph Picker on multiple occasions, but he has refused to respond. Instead of committing to investigating these concerns yourself, it seems as though you are shifting responsibility entirely to Picker & Associates without expressing a clear intent to oversee or ensure resolution.
The availability of ballots and spreadsheets is appreciated, but transparency is only meaningful when paired with accountability. Owners need more than access to raw data, they need assurance that any issues uncovered in their analyses are investigated with diligence and resolved with the seriousness they deserve.
Request for Action
I look forward to your confirmation of these next steps:
- Instruct Picker & Associates to provide detailed answers to the unresolved questions outlined above and any others that may emerge following ongoing analysis.
- Commit to ensuring accountability by thoroughly investigating all outstanding concerns raised by owners, resolving them transparently, and proactively addressing any additional issues that may be identified in future analyses.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. I look forward to your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Drew McManus
Why The Focus On The HOA President?
In our HOA governance structure, the President holds a unique position of authority and responsibility. Unlike other board members, the President is the only individual empowered to take certain critical actions:
- Initiating Ad Hoc Committees: Only the President can establish committees to investigate issues or recommend solutions.
- Appointing Committee Members: The President alone appoints members to committees.
- Holding Vendors Accountable: The President alone can compel providers like Picker & Associates to respond to owner inquiries or explain discrepancies in their work.
- Overseeing Election Integrity: As the board officer tasked with ensuring that elections are conducted fairly and in accordance with HOA rules, the President is directly responsible for addressing any concerns about the process.
Under Scott Timmerman’s tenure, this already central authority has been further consolidated. Through his leadership style and decision-making, Timmerman has positioned himself as the primary, and often sole, decision-maker for addressing critical issues. Moreover, those decisions are made without the benefit of oversight or peer review.
While this isn’t the type of governance structure that best serves the Association, it’s the one we have. This concentration of power places even greater responsibility on Timmerman to act decisively and transparently, especially regarding the serious concerns raised about the recent election.
Unresolved Issues
The following critical issues remain unanswered:
- The total vote count went from 43.99 the night of the election to 45.221 overnight.
- This resulted in candidate Salvi Gupta, an owner not on Board President Scott Timmerman’s recommended slate, going from being declared a winner to being replaced by a candite from Timmerman’s slate that originally lost.
- The change in vote total was explained as an Excel spreadsheet “sorting error.” While a “sorting error” in an Excel spreadsheet might shuffle things around, it doesn’t magically create new votes. It’s like reaching into an empty cookie jar and pulling out extra cookies, something doesn’t add up.
- Critical security measures mandated by the Association’s “Procedures For The Election Of the Board Of Directors” were ignored, specifically, all ballots should have been time-stamped to prevent fraud by adding ballots after preliminary results released.
- Not a single ballot in the entire election carried the required time stamp.
- This issue is tied to the unexplained change in the total vote count as it raises concerns that additional ballots could have been added, potentially giving a lead to the candidate endorsed by Scott Timmerman, who otherwise lost to a non-endorsed candidate.
Easily, this is one of the most startling discoveries so far:
- A sample ballot distributed by Board President Scott Timmerman was counted as a real vote (context: read about Timmerman’s decision to engage in recommending candidates while serving as Board President).
- This phantom ballot assigned 0.11408% ownership, distributed evenly, to each of Timmerman’s 25 recommended candidates.
- The irregularity was confirmed by finding seven entries with this exact percentage in the spreadsheet, but only six corresponding physical ballots with the amount listed.
- Scott Timmerman’s “Sample Ballot” was recorded as Ballot #11.
Update 11/24/2024: After hearing from Timmerman that he believes Ballot 11 was legitimate and submitted by an owner, I wanted to provide even more evidence illustrating why that is incorrect. The following image includes a copy of every legitimate ballot with a 0.11408% ownership stake, as well as Timmerman’s Sample Ballot, which has been treated as a real ballot. The excerpted spreadsheet shows the seven instances of votes recorded from unites with 0.11408% but you can see there are only six legitimate ballots cast. Timmerman’s Sample Ballot is marked as Ballot #11 and was recorded by Picker & Associates accordingly in the Ballot Tabulation Sheet.
Several issues emerged with ballots from owners of multiple units:
- Some ballots were marked and recorded as “cumulative” for owners with multiple units.
- These ballots had hand-written percentages and Control Numbers.
- The original individual unit ballots were missing from the official ballot pack when all individual ballots are supposed to be retained.
- This breaks the chain of documentation needed for proper vote verification.
- Other ballots from owners with multiple units are recorded individually.
There were two write-in candidates in this election: Sue Kadin and John Wilhelm. Both received one vote from a single unit and while the tabulation spreadsheet from Picker & Associates LLC listed both candidates as receiving 0.1878% support, the certified results document prepared by Picker & Associates lists Wilhelm as receiving 0.1878% but Kadin as 0.0000%.
According to a message from the Community Association Manager, Picker & Associates “counted and re-counted” and “the final certified election results have been confirmed.” (details)
Given that the second write-in candidate’s vote total was accurately reported, it begs the question: how could one candidate’s results be completely misreported while another’s remained intact while also asserting that the “only results that count” contain an obvious error?
- UPDATE Nov 23, 2024: In a Nov 21, 2024 email, HOA Board President writes that Picker & Associates asserts this recording error was a “typo” and therefore does not rise to the level of any additional scrutiny. However, prudent follow-up should include confirming if a cross-verification process was used. Specifically: How did Picker & Associates confirm the accuracy of the recorded results? Can they provide a more detailed explanation of how such a recording error could arise despite their stated re-checking process?
According to the Association’s “Procedures For The Election Of The Board Of Directors“, it says the Election Committee must help owners fix problems with their ballots, like missing signatures, so their votes can be counted.
Two unsigned ballots were thrown out without anyone trying to contact the owners. Both ballots included votes for for candidates Timmerman didn’t endorse.
Based on the information I’ve collected, it’s clear the Election Committee members didn’t intend any harm. What is clear is they weren’t trained properly on how to carry out their responsibilities nor were they informed of options when making decisions that invalidated ballots.
When looking into the ballot recording errors, an unsettling detail emerged.
The incorrectly recorded ballot discovered last month belonged to Norman and Lauren Kabir, two homeowners who have been outspoken about their concerns related to Board President Timmerman’s leadership. In fact, Timmerman has specifically named and criticized the Kabirs in several written communications sent to all residents.
What makes this particularly concerning is the probability, out of all the hundreds of ballots cast, that the Kabirs’ ballot was the one mistakenly recorded by Picker & Associates LLC.
What makes this particularly concerning is the probability, out of all the hundreds of ballots cast, that the Kabirs’ ballot was the one mistakenly recorded by Picker & Associates LLC.
The odds are 3.15 in a million. The statistical unlikelihood of this coincidence raises serious questions about the integrity of our election process.
UPDATE Nov 23, 2024: While the issue was discovered to be an error in the original analysis, a newly discovered issue localized (so far) to the same owner does not change the statistical improbability, it merely changes the source issue.
- A significant error was found in the recording of Ballot #48 (owner interest: 0.17816%):
- hree votes for candidates were completely omitted (Matheney, Singer, and Bolten).
- One vote was incorrectly recorded for a candidate the owner did not vote for (Carr).
- This error directly affected the voting percentages for multiple candidates.
1) Omitted Votes
2) Misattributed Vote
In response to ongoing election concerns, Timmerman has taken a puzzling stance: asserting that Picker & Associates alone should determine which owner questions deserve investigation or response. This position fundamentally misunderstands and misrepresents his role as President. Here’s why this matters:
- Picker & Associates’ authority ended when they certified the election results.
- Picker & Associates, as a hired vendor, works for the Association, not the other way around.
- A Board President can’t delegate away fiduciary responsibility to ensure election integrity.
- Allowing vendors to decide which owner concerns merit investigation creates a conflict of interest, they would be policing their own potential errors.
This attempt to hand off fiduciary duties while maintaining tight control over other Association matters raises serious questions about picking and choosing when to use authority.
The Need for Independent Oversight
Despite these unanswered questions, Timmerman has refused to commit to a thorough investigation. He has instead shifted responsibility to Picker & Associates, even though they have not responded to multiple requests for clarification. Owners cannot trust the same entity that made these errors to conduct an impartial review without oversight.
Despite these unanswered questions, Timmerman has refused to commit to a thorough investigation. In the November board meeting, even after other board members expressed concern and recommended issues be investigated, Timmerman ended the discussion without proposing a motion, or commit to forming an ad hoc committee.
Instead, he has shifted responsibility to Picker & Associates, even though they have not responded to multiple requests for clarification. This pattern of avoidance highlights the urgent need for independent oversight.
An independent investigation should:
- Review all ballots and documentation for additional discrepancies and recount all votes.
- Confirm whether Picker & Associates adhered to the Association’s election rules and best practices.
- Provide a final report clear explanations for discrepancies such as the missing time stamps, changes in total vote counts, and the inclusion of a sample ballot in the official results.
- Recommend, if confirmed, whether any discrepancies or procedural errors by Picker & Associates warrant conducting an emergency election to ensure fairness and compliance.
Here’s What You Can Do To Help
Owners deserve confidence in the integrity of our HOA elections. I urge the Board to prioritize accountability by commissioning an independent review of the election and requiring Picker & Associates to provide comprehensive responses to all outstanding issues. Without these steps, the legitimacy of the election results will remain in question, and trust in the process will continue to erode.
This is not about assigning blame; it’s about ensuring a fair and transparent process for all owners. Let’s work together to address these concerns and restore confidence in our community’s governance.
I encourage everyone to talk to your neighbors and encourage them to use this template to email Timmerman or contact him directly. Feel free to modify any of the copy below to include your own thoughts and concerns.
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.