GalaxyFacts Chat Room

[admin]

The SPIN-gola Stops Here - AGAIN

Former Director and Secretary of the GTCA, Luane Spingola, masterfully delivers Deluca's 5 minute speech to the Board in his absence.

Another lie by Lerner: "Unit owners are not allowed to speak at the meetings unless the are addressed by the board".

Here's a short list of owners who were allowed to speak from the sidelines during past open session meetings without being addressed:
(Center and Otero - and there are some others)

The camera was not shut off on them as it was when Peggy Rackett tried to speak in this meeting by Mr. Transparency himself Slava LIE-ner.


Link

[Guest]

See for yourself. Luane is not quaking except with righteous indignation. Mike was right on target.

Phil B.

[Guest]

Well done Luane !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Check out Lerner looking through his papers in the beginning of this video acting like he doesn't know what the next topic on the agenda is.

Oh what a surprise ! Spingola is speaking next! oh I had no idea!

LOL

[luane spingola]

Watch the President right before he goes out of frame. I prefaced my speech by noting the Board had allowed another owner at the last meeting to speak for over 9 minutes, and asked to receive the same courtesy (that's when the President shakes his head cueing the Secretary "No") since I may go over by 58 seconds.
Actually, I went over by 59. The Board did allow me that time.

I hear now that some Directors are saying I spoke for 9 minutes; this is incorrect. It may be time to get a new stopwatch.

One of the last things I did as a Director was make the motion to increase the time that owners can address the Board to 5 minutes. If you watched that meeting last February, you saw the President take credit for instituting this practice in the first place, which he indeed do, and expansively say it would be OK with him if owners spoke for 10 minutes. And indeed, the Board seemed to have set a precedent: in recent months, one owner spoke for 9 minutes; one couple spoke for 12; last week, the Board's back and forth with the speaker before me lasted longer than that. I have already requested to speak at the July 16th meeting and have heard that I will be wrenched from the room at precisely 5 minutes. That's OK by me - but it's obvious the time the Board allows owners to speak is contingent upon whether the Board approves of what the speaker is saying. (Double standard, anyone?)

Take my comments about the recall. May I remind the owners that in 2007, with the backing of the current President, I spoke in favor of that recall; our current Asst. Secretary spoke against it. Fast-forward to present: now that the President is the subject of the recall, I understand some Directors feel I was "politicking" and furthering my own personal agenda. Which is funny, since I don't have one, there was nothing remotely "personal" in anything I said, and in 2007, the President vehemently supported my speaking about the recall.
(Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?)

Will the President allow the 5 minutes of free speech to continue? I don't think he has a choice right now; the Board would look worse than they already do if they reneged on this. Maybe they'll go with something else...like, any owner who has already addressed the Board cannot do so again for 15 years...
Time will tell!
Luane

[Guest]

sign of lying - shaking uncontrollably

maybe if she tells truth next time she wont shake?

[Guest]

We want to know - what did Luanne say that was untruthful? You make the allegations, but you can't back them up. Pathetic!
Keep up the good work, Luanne!

[Guest]

[Guest]

don't hold your breath, mike - THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS!

[Miked]

Directors,


This is the letter Luane read at the last Board meeting. In it, I state many facts and ask many questions. Upon hearing what I had to say, the President alleged I was misinformed, my charges were false, and every one of them would be responded to. For easy reference, I enclose a copy of the letter Luane read for me last Thursday, and I've added some further comments. I look forward to your trying to prove me wrong. I have been accused publicly by our President of giving the association false information. I intend to clear my good name of this false accusation and defend my reputation publicly with facts and documented evidence to support what was stated.



Directors:
I would like to begin by commending Mr. Van Bergen and Cooper Square for the fantastic job they've done here in the last year and a half.

Despite many obstacles, micro-managing, insults and interference, Mr. Van Bergen remains professional, gets the job done, works long and hard for us, and should be cited for his dedication, not set up and sniped at on and off camera.
Certain Board members are in this office all day, almost every day.
The President now has his own office on this floor.
Recently a complaint was filed against this President for reducing a female employee to tears by calling her a filthy name.

I challenge the Board to refute any of the above.

I ask the Board to please let Cooper Square do their job. It would be a great disservice to all of us if our Board removed Mr. Van Bergen or any of his staff - yet, the Cooper Square contract remains unsigned.

True? It's a yes or no question.

I want the Board to know that, unlike the President, most owners believe that fixing the elevators takes priority over automating the garage. Ensuring that our fire safety system is functioning properly is more important than sub-metering. Passing two assessments on top of 2 maintenance increases in 6 months destroys our property values.
Allowing the chronic absence of our Vice President, who has not been to any of the 40 or so working sessions and even some open sessions since he was elected in March, is detrimental to the Galaxy.

Again, I invite the Board to deny any of the above.

I ask the Board: Why are we in the HVAC business?
As a Director, I saw an email from our current facilities manager explaining why he believed the GE PTAC units are less energy and cost efficient than other brands that fit our sleeves; some of the GE units were leaking and ruining the floors; and the manhours needed for installation were enormous. He recommended a different unit that would not require altering the sleeves and
was more energy efficient than the GE units. Yet last month the President announced that we were purchasing more GE units.
After reading that email, why? Does someone on the Board have a special relationship with GE? The owners deserve an explanation, and full disclosure of the President's interest in GE.

I can show you a copy of the memo; and I await the President's confirmation or explanation of his relationship with GE.

I ask the Board: why the elevators do not take priority over sub-metering and garage automation. The lack of maintenance and modernization has made our elevators unsafe - as well as helping to depreciate our propety values. A friend in Edgewater was interested in buying here until he and his realtor waited 10 minutes for an elevator. Directors, remember this the next time garage automation comes up! In 2008 an experienced elevator consultant who worked for Otis for many years was hired. His specialty? Modernization. Months later, he's no longer with us because his company’s specialty was not modernization. Now I hear that this same company is back - to help modernize.
I think the residents who are paying for this service deserve an explanation.

I again challenge the Board to refute any of the above.

I ask the Board: why do you continue to patch and re-patch the Tower 2 roof against the recommendation of professionals who said we should replace it because it was beyond repair? Our President convinced the Board majority to patch. It lasted 6 months. Another patch was needed, then another.
The argument was, “but it isn’t leaking in the same place”. Of course not - the entire roof is damaged!
Replacement would cost $300,000 and would last 20 years; last February the President said we'll patch the roof for 20 years; at $15,000 a year the cost is the same. Prices rise: if the cost went up a mere $3000 a year over the next 20 years, we would have paid over $800,000 to patch the roof.

Again, statements of fact.

I ask the Board, regarding the laundry, why front loading washers were chosen when this failed years ago? When I asked the residents, 95% said they didn’t want front-loaders. The Board ignored this. I researched the chosen company and showed the Board postings from the website of a building they service complaining about the poor job the front loaders do and the company's poor service record. The Board dismissed this. More troubling was the fact that a Director asked the representative if he could buy one of his company's washers “at cost” ; the agent's answer was “yeah, sure.” Ethical?

100% true, and I look forward to the Board's denial of any of the above.

The President says we will save water with these front loaders. Then why is he allowing the commercial units in the mall to add new bathrooms - a clear violation of the alteration agreement which also results in us paying the extra sewerage bill? Could this be why 28 Mall units named a sitting director as their anti-recall proxy last march?

Bathrooms HAVE been installed. There WERE Mall proxies made out to a sitting Director. Does the Board disagree?

I would like to ask the Board why, in regard to the last two special assessments, no substantiation was given. And why has the 7% increase,
collected since January and promised to go only for the pre-payment of the loan, NOT been used for this purpose? The President's spin about having the money first and then going to the bank is an embarassment: the owners were told we would start prepaying in january. we ponied up the money. It hasn't gone towards pre-paying the loan - why? and where is it?
Why was our ex-treasurer tried, convicted and removed -- and not replaced? Why does this Board think we can use the Finance Committee - who have done a commendable job - as treasurer when legal counsel said this is improper?
I can only think of one reason and he sits at the head of this table.

The promised prepayment of the loan HASN'T happened; the Treasurer has NOT been replaced. I ask the President what, if any, is the misinformation he accuses me of publicizing?

Lastly, by now most of you, Directors and owners, have received a letter calling for a special meeting to recall the President, the Asst. Secretary, and a District 3 director.
I would ask these Directors to resign, as two did before them, to allow the remaining directors to start interviewing candidates. The process is in place - so this recall will cost a fraction of the $20,000 spent on the last recall - which is less than what your president spent last year on bogus investigations of other directors. In a 2007 open session your current President, now subject to this recall effort, said "if there was just one signature on a petition to remove me, I would resign." There are alot more than just one; so I ask the President now to take your own advice, keep your word, and step down.

I would like to thank the Board for allowing me this time. This was written by Mike Deluca and he and only he is responsible for its content.
Thank you very much.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard and I look forward to the President's attempt to disprove anything I've said.


Sincerely,


Mike Deluca

T3 28D

[Guest]

Subject:
RE: The Weekly Status Report Maintenance Department
From:
Jan Vanbergen
Dear Mr. Miller

Dear Members of the Board:

At the present time we have 7 brand new units in the maintenance shop, which are leaking and some are not working at all. We also have numerous apartments with complaints of the units not working efficiently and leaking. As we are going through all the paperwork in Mr. Malonzo's office, we found documentation showing a profit margin of $ 46.50. Our men are spending 3 days in the installation of these units. Whereas any other AC units would have been a pull and replace without altering walls or sleeves. This would give us a better profit margin, because the job can be done in 1 day instead of 3.

We are finding that the retro-fit-sleeves are not pitched right, thus causing the unit to leak on the inside of the apartment and damaging the floors.

If you have more information than what we have found in Mr. Malonzo's papers, we would gladly welcome that you share your thoughts with us.

Jan Willem Van Bergen

General Manager


GE has contacted me and said GE has received the balance ($) of the first A/C order and they are releasing the 9 units that we have requested to be exchanged with the 9 defective units we have on hand. After that they will try and reinstate our credit line for the order of the 100 units we ordered. GE has also agreed to train our staff in trouble shooting and repairing the units. Apt 31C floors damaged by the leak from the new GE units will be repaired by Sullivan floors at no cost to us; GE will be paying for the invoice.


Apartment 31C this claim has been given over to GE, this was due to leaking a/c's.



Weekly Report.

Many problems with the GE P-Tac units, (leaks and not efficient) I will be looking into an alternative P-Tac so as to reduce the disruption to our home owners, and give us a greater profit margin.

[Guest]

Yeah looks like deluca lied again

Van Bergen, and Rivera made all this stuff up about the P-Tac's

It's all not true

LOL

[DOC]

[Jerry Engber]

[Guest]

LESS THAN FACTUAL my ass slava

Weekly Report.

Many problems with the GE P-Tac units, (leaks and not efficient) I will be looking into an alternative P-Tac so as to reduce the disruption to our home owners, and give us a greater profit margin.