A final word on the use of the Aquarius Zoom license

Cecílio-Augusto Berndsen, 1005N

I have seen messages regarding the use of the ZOOM license. These messages try to justify what cannot be justified. This is my last statement on the subject, but I will not censor any comment on the matter provided it is written in an acceptable manner.  An opposing view by Bhagwan (Buck) Gupta is presented after my observations. 

The use of the ZOOM license belongs to the Aquarius Condo Association, not the Board not the Management Office.

To deny its use alleging a possibility of a security breach is a clear demonstration of lack of familiarity with information systems in general and ignorance of ZOOM operations in particular.

If, for reason of argumentation, there were a real concern with the possibility of breaching the ZOOM security, something impossible, the meeting could have been conducted by the Management Office hosting the meeting and preventing the absurd, not true, fallacious, flawed hypothesis of a security breach.

But, for a moment let consider, if the intentions were good, if there was a genuine will to support a fellow owner and this was impossible for whatever reason the minimum would be to respond on the approval of the rental/agreement that no support would be given. A justification given Friday Jan. 7 was that the Management Office does not help people that use the Green Room to play cards. Why was this not done on the approval of the rental/agreement executed January 3^rd?

Do we consider playing cards and meeting the Candidates for the Association’s Board of Directors to be of the equal significance for our community? Why such event that actually defines the faith of our Association for the whole year has not been organized and hosted by the administration? Does the administration represent the interests of the Association or the limited group of individuals trying to cling to power and exclusively using all the resources paid for by all unit owners to their advantage?

Considering all this, it is impossible to believe that there was an expected positive inclination to be supportive. To the contrary. It seems that the intention was to sabotage, obstruct, make it difficult. Had I been informed of the total lack of support on January 3^rd, I and a group of concerned and motivated owners could have made arrangements to better organize the meeting in a timely manner. The omission by Management under the false pretense with the Board supporting it caused me to scramble for solutions.

But let’s forget the ZOOM issue. After all the meeting was a success for all candidates except for Ella Fishman. The owners of Aquarius who had the chance to participate were very happy with the opportunity to know the candidates a little better. The Cascade Room was full in addition there were about 50 participants in the Zoom session!

But how can one justify that the information on the candidates that was properly filed in the office by early December was made public December 27? And how can one justify the delay in mailing the ballots? Is the last minute the right way to do this?

It does not look good. Not at all.

Cecilio-Augusto Berndsen, 1005N

Quick reminder from the Florida Statute:

1. 1. 5. Florida Statute 720.304 Right of owners to peaceably assemble;

(1) All common areas and recreational facilities serving any homeowners’ association shall be available to parcel owners in the homeowners’ association served thereby and their invited guests for the use intended for such common areas and recreational facilities. The entity or entities responsible for the operation of the common areas and recreational facilities may adopt reasonable rules and regulations pertaining to the use of such common areas and recreational facilities. No entity or entities shall unreasonably restrict any parcel owner’s right to peaceably assemble or right to invite public officers or candidates for public office to appear and speak in common areas and recreational facilities.

Opposing view by

Bhagwan (Buck) Gupta,  804S

Cecilio ! Thanks for sharing your new post along with your editorial comments. It is only fair that you could mention the long conversation you and I had relative to your request for assistance for the event scheduled for Jan. 11th at 6:30pm. I explained to you the reasons why the Association could not provide access to ZOOM account owned by Aquarius. Since than the property manager has further memorialized in an email to you and other unit owners. 

The cascade room chairs were arranged to control the number of in person guests attending the meeting. 

The email from Leo published on your blog makes no mention that each one of the issues raised in his email were addressed in detail by me  prior to adoption of new Assessment. Similar types of details were presented at the budget adoption meeting. I am not able to rehash the same information multiple times because a unit owner finds time to write down in detail the request for same information provided to all unit owners in attendance at specially called meetings. 

It would be nice to provide both sides of any issue on your blog. As a volunteer board member, I have tried to be as transparent as  possible for providing explanation at each occasion. Sometimes I have been guilty for going overboard in providing details for any construction project presented at various meetings, but that is my problem. 

Please feel free to post this communique on your blog.