Authority Without Arithmetic
The Dangers Of Unsubstantiated Claims
July 11, 2026
Say something twice, to a room full of the people you answer to, and you should be able to back it up. 175 E Delaware Pl. HOA Board President, Scott Timmerman, told board members and owners that document requests frequently go unclaimed. It seems reasonable to expect he could answer a simple related question: how many, exactly? What came back was everything except a number. After multiple requests, the questions just sat there, the way unanswered questions do when no one intends to answer them.
Brought to you by Drew McManus, your neighbor in 7908.
The Public Assertion
An Official Claim in Search of Its Metrics
At two board meetings of the 175 E Delaware Pl. HOA, Board President Scott Timmerman told owners that printed document requests are frequently left uncollected. Not once, but across two separate meetings. It was offered as a supposed-fact about how owners behave, and it was used to describe what Timmerman asserted is a problem the building supposedly has.
On June 16, 2026 I emailed Timmerman and asked him to provide the data behind his own words. Not to debate whether it was true. To produce the numbers behind it and define what he asserted as a frequent occurrence. The request named three specific figures, each designed to allow Timmerman to support and verify his claim:
- Total uncollected: The exact count of approved requests that were prepared, printed, and never picked up, by the owner or an authorized agent.
Rationale: This is the number that turns “frequently” into a fact or exposes it as filler. - How many destroyed: Of those uncollected packets, how many were later discarded or trashed.
Rationale: A claim that the building routinely destroys owners’ records is a far heavier one, and it needs its own number. - What was requested: The type of document in each instance, with no owner names or unit numbers attached, only the date, the information requested, and the date it was satisfied.
Rationale: A few stray requests across five years is anecdotal. A steady stream is a pattern. The type and the timing are what separate the two.
I asked Timmerman to provide the details within nine days, by the close of business on June 25, 2026. This should have been ample time to provide confirmations for his assertions.
The Rhetoric Loop
Three Replies That Went Everywhere Except An Answer
Timmerman replied twice, and ultimately failed to produce any documentation by the deadline. Neither of his replies produced the number, but each one avoided it differently:
- Reply #1, Answer A Different Question: Timmerman responded as though the request were a formal document request, even though it was clearly addressed to him, about statements he personally made. I had already stated plainly that this was not a routine records request yet his reply treated a request for proof as a paperwork errand.
- Reply #2, Cite An Unrelated Source: His second reply named a spreadsheet: roughly five years of requests, compiled at the request of a “previous board,” maintained by Management, and included in the board packet. It confirmed a file exists. The file he cited speaks to requests made, not requests left uncollected, which was his assertion.
- Reply #3, Try Silence: After sending a third email, June 25 arrived. The deadline passed. Timmerman never replied or provided the information.
Nothing on the record changed between each email exchange. What remained was the distance between “the data exists” and “here are the numbers,” and that distance is what matters.
Drew McManus
June 16, 2026, 9:13 AM
Scott,
During the May and June board meetings, you stated that printed document requests are frequently left uncollected by owners. To ensure the board and the community are operating on accurate facts regarding this issue, I am requesting the exact data backing up those statements.
To avoid any ambiguity or misinterpretation, please provide the specific metrics requested below. Please use the following parameters when compiling this information:
- Include all approved requests where the physical documents were printed but never collected, regardless of whether the pickup was made by the unit owner themselves or by an authorized agent acting on their behalf.
- Explicitly exclude any document requests that were ultimately denied by the association.
With those parameters in mind, please provide the exact numbers for the following:
- Total Number of Uncollected Requests: What is the exact number of approved document requests that were printed but never picked up (by either the owner or their authorized agent)?
- Documents Destroyed: Of those uncollected packets, exactly how many were ultimately discarded or trashed?
- Nature of the Requests: What was the specific nature or type of documents requested in each of these uncollected instances (e.g., financial statements, meeting minutes, governing documents, vendor contracts)? For clarity, I am not asking for the owner name or unit number, only the “Date of the Request,” “Information Requested,” and “Date When Request Was Satisfied.”
Please provide these exact figures by no later than the close of business on Thursday, June 25, 2026 so we can address this matter with the precise data you referenced during the last two meetings.
Blue skies,
Drew McManus
unit 7908
Scott Timmerman
June 16, 2026, 11:12 AM
If you are making a Document Request, those must be sent to Management. Scott Timmerman
Drew McManus
June 16, 2026, 11:29 AM
Hi Scott,
It sounds like there might be a misunderstanding. I am not submitting a standard document request for association records to Management.
I am asking you to clarify the specific factual claims you personally made during the May and June board meetings regarding owners frequently failing to collect printed documents.
Since you publicly cited these occurrences to the community, it seems you already have this data on hand. If Management holds the data required to substantiate your statements, I have included Cristina on this thread so she can assist you in providing the exact numbers requested by June 25th.
Conversely, are you saying the board does not have the data to back up the statements made at the last two meetings?
Blue skies,
Drew McManus
Unit 7908
Scott Timmerman
June 16, 2026, 11:37 AM
As referenced in last night’s meeting, the Board packet included a spreadsheet of every request made over the last five years and information about each of those requests. That spreadsheet was compiled at the request of a previous Board and is maintained by Management. Scott Timmerman
Drew McManus
June 16, 2026, 11:56 AM
Hi Scott,
Thank you for referencing the spreadsheet maintained by Management. Since you have already reviewed that data to assert that owners fail to pick up their documents, extracting the exact numbers should be straightforward.
It seems like you are uncomfortable providing the exact data to back up your own public statements made during the May and June board meetings. Your responses here redirect to Management rather than answering the question directly, which owners may reasonably interpret as deflection given that you personally cited this data during two public meetings. The responsibility to produce that verification is yours.
If the data supports your statements, producing it should take moments; your deadline remains June 25th. If you realize the data does not fully support the statements made at those meetings, I welcome that detailed clarification as well; the community deserves accurate information either way.
Blue skies,
Drew
The Authority Bias
When Unsubstantiated Claims Influence Decisions
The missing numbers are one problem. But you may be wondering about the essence of Timmerman’s claim, and it is worth looking at on its own.
Illinois law says owners can see their building’s records. But when a board president claims during a board meeting owners “frequently” don’t bother picking those records up, and suddenly the right looks like a hassle they created. The blame flips. Now the problem isn’t how the board handles requests. It’s how owners act. And “frequently” is a safe word. It sounds like a lot without saying how many, so nobody can argue with it…right up until someone asks for the number.
None of the board members asked. And at 175 E Delaware Pl HOA, owners are forbidden from asking questions or talking during board meetings. So when a board president asserts something as a fact, members believe it, because they figure he already looked. The claim doesn’t need proof. It just needs a podium.
Only Timmerman can explain why he made the assertion, and I won’t guess. But here’s the question: what happens when owners get blamed for a problem, everyone believes it because of who said it, but requested confirmation never shows up?
The Standard
What Board Officers Are Supposed To Do
The Community Associations Institute (CAI), a national body that publishes voluntary governance standards for HOAs, directs board members to represent only known facts in any matter of association business. That ethical standard carries no legal force by itself. It exists because a claim from board leadership is not casual opinion; owners treat it as fact, and boards act on it.
Illinois sets a firmer floor. Under the Illinois Condominium Property Act (ICPA), the state law governing HOA conduct, board members must exercise the care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners. A fiduciary is a person legally bound to act in another party’s interest rather than their own.
Whether my exchange with Timmerman rises to a breach of that duty is a legal judgment for a court of law, not a conclusion this publication draws.
The ethical bar is simpler, and it is the one that matters here. When a board officer tells owners how often something is happening, and an owner asks to see the count, the count either exists or it does not.
Here, by the officer’s own account, it exists. It is reasonable to assume they didn’t fabricate the number on the first instance then double-down to use it again in a second meeting. If it is a genuine fact, It should be one that can be confirmed. So the question that closes this is not whether the data could be produced. It is this: what does it mean when the numbers are that close at hand, but a board officer refuses to provide them?
