Introduction

The story about ballot harvesting is a difficult story to research, but nevertheless, it is an important story to learn.

The practice of ballot harvesting explains how a small, tightknit community of decision makers at the home owners association known as Middlesex Beach (The HOA) control who occupies positions of authority, including board members and committee chair positions, and who does not. Ballot harvesting explains how the board solicits, recruits and cultivates decision makers at The HOA, and how the board disposes of people, who no longer work for the people, who wield power.

Ballot harvesting explains how the people, who have comparatively low approval figures (as ascertained by survey), routinely prevail in competitive election campaigns, election cycle after election cycle.

Ballot harvesting and the threat of removal from the board also explains how board members gang up and coax other board members into awarding lucrative, capital projects to the family members of the people, who wield power.

Ballot harvesting also explains the reason a number of real estate agents, who represent buyers, pass on showing property in Middlesex Beach.

Ballot harvesting also explains the reason a number of building contractors do not touch opportunities in Middlesex Beach.

What is Ballot Harvesting

The term, ballot harvesting, may mean different things depending on the context of the discussion. For the purpose of this article, ballot harvesting is the systematic approach for which mail-in ballots are received as proxy ballots by the board or other members, who wield power, and how the selections on the ballot are proctored and tabulated, when the final selections on the ballot vary from the intentions of the voting member, who originally cast the ballot.

In the case where the board is named as proxy, ballot harvesting occurs when one or more members of the board alters the selections on the ballot without the explicit permission of the voting member, who originally cast the ballot.

In the case where the board is named as proxy, ballot harvesting also occurs when the board advances a set of the ballots to be counted while electing to withhold other ballots from being counted.

In the case where an individual is named as proxy, ballot harvesting occurs when the individual, who is named as the proxy alters the selections on the ballot without receiving explicit permission from the voting member, who originally cast the ballot.

Ballot harvesting as I have defined it is a common practice in home owners associations in Delaware. Ballot harvesting is both an unethical practice and in many states an illegal practice that has both criminal and civil remedies.

In the case of a ballot to vote up or down an annual assessment the language on the ballot can vary dramatically to achieve a biased result. For example, in the Spring of 2023 the community expressed grave misgivings about the 2024FYE budget as proposed by the board. However, the language on the ballot to pass the 2024FYE budget gave the board enormous latitude to either selectively include ballots in the final count or withhold ballots from the final count. The ballot stated that all mail-in ballots must be received at the property management firm by Monday, May 1, 2023 to be counted. The community meeting was scheduled six days later on Saturday, May 6, 2023. The ballots were not distributed by mail until mid week the week prior. Many members did not receive the ballot until later that week. The board at the time had ample opportunity to selectively include or reject mail-in ballots that arrived after Monday, May 1, 2023 to bias the result of the final tally.

On May 6, 2023 The HOA overwhelmingly voted down the proposed budget by a reported vote count of eighty-eight (88) ballots against the FYE2024 Budget, and a reported vote count of sixty-five (65) ballots for the FYE2024 Budget. However, the vote was much closer than anticipated. A survey found that an overwhelming majority, approximately 77% of the surveyed population said that they would vote down the proposed budget had the vote been held the day of the survey, while 17% of the surveyed population said that they were not sure how they would vote. Only 5% of the surveyed population said they would vote for the FYE2024 buget if the vote were held that day. The survey had a margin of error of 22%. However, the actual percentage vote against the proposed budget was 57.5% voting against and 42.5% voting for. The results are well beyond the survey's margin of error, indicating the possibility of ballot selection bias by the board prior to the time of the actual floor vote.

Typically, the majority of ballots that come in for community meetings that vote up or down an assessment are proxy ballots. However, the community neeting that witnessed the vote on the FYE2024 budget held on May 6, 2023 was not typical. In the case of the assessment vote on May 6, 2023 over sixty member properties were represented in the room at the time of the floor vote. There was nothing the board could do behind the scenes to force the FYE2024 budget down the throat of the community.

In the case of a ballot towards a board election the language on the ballot can also vary to achieve a biased result. The 2023 ballot gave members an opportunity to list a member of the community as proxy or alternatively, the board, itself, as proxy. That would give the people, who wield power on board and have a close relationship with the property management firm, opportunity to bias the result by overvoting ballots.

The ballot can also have language to the effect that in the absence of anyone listed as proxy, the board reserves sole discretion over how the ballot is exercised. This all but assures the opportunity for the board to exercise complete control over mail-in ballots. As only the representatives of an average of twenty eight member properties, excluding board members, are represented at the Fall meeting that witnesses the board elections the vast majority of counted ballots are indeed proxy ballots.

The person named as proxy does not necessarily need to be an active board member. HOA member, Tristan Krueger, reportedly forwarded his ballot to Geoff Sella to proctor. Geoff Sella was not a member of the board of directors at that time. Krueger intentionally left his ballot without any candidate selections, allowing Sella to overwrite his own selections on behalf of Krueger. Without clarification it is unclear whether Krueger wanted Sella to make the candidate selections on his behalf or whether Krueger truly wanted not to vote for any of the candidates. In the absence of language that transfers authority from the grantor to the grantee the onus is on the grantee to seek clarification on the wishes of the voting member, the grantor, prior to altering the ballot.

Board members, who are entrusted to large numbers of proxy ballots, have enormous leverage over their peers on the board, should these proxy holders overvote the ballots with their own selections.

A questionable historical pattern in board elections

The board would have the membership believe that each residential member has one vote and that the vote from an officer on the board counts no more to the final talley than a vote from any other residential member. However, that otherwise discounts the function behind the proxy ballot. When a ballot has a designated proxy, the ballot grantor than authorizes the ballot grantee or proxy holder the rights to exercised the grantor's ballot. The proxy holder is in theory responsible to drop off the ballot for tabulation. However, the exact authority that a proxy holder has depends on the language on the ballot. In some cases where the language on the ballot allows, the proxy holder can overvote the ballot, effectively altering the original selections on the ballot that the original voting member intended. The legalese on the MBA association ballots changes frequently and few people keep any records of the ballots prior to forfeiting the ballot to the property management firm for tabulation.

The disparity of power between officers of the community and residential members occurs when either the board, a board member or a person, who wields political power, overvotes (or in effect alters) a ballot that that person has proxy authority over where the selections on the ballot no longer match what the originating voting member intended.

The board would have the membership believe that at the Fall community meeting on Saturday, September 2, 2023 incumbent candidate Margie Cyr won a seat on the board of directors for the sixth consecutive time. A survey proctored close in proximity to the election found that Cyr had the lowest approval numbers when compared to all other officers in the community. Cyr's approval numbers were lower than that of fellow incumbent candidate and board member, Nora Alter, who sought re-election to a second, two-year term on the board. Nora Alter reportedly made little impact as a board member and largely voted in lock-step with then president, Paul Bradley.

Cyr's approval numbers were lower than that of Paul Bradley, who was also underwater on the survey. Bradley manipulated his peers to see to it that the board awarded his cousin, Gene, a 90,000.00 dollar capital building project. The capital building project, which involved the construction of the guard shack at the corner of Bridge Road and Dune Road, came in at a staggering 900.00 dollars per square foot and was reportedly 30,000.00 dollars more costly than the closest competitive bid from local contractor, Shore Home Improvements. After the board election on September 2, 2023 Bradley stepped down as community president, but remained a board member in accordance with the rules of the bylaws.

Cyr's approval numbers were lower than that of vice president, Ron Thomas, whose personal issues became visibly apparent in the latter portion of his two-year term. Thomas opted not to run for second two-year term.

Cyr reportedly received the third highest total of votes in a field of seven candidates, vying for one of four open board positions. Cyr trailed behind front runner, David Weicking, who reportedly received 128 votes, while Nora Alter found herself last in the vote talley and no longer a member of the board of directors.

If community approval as measured by the survey approval numbers mattered, in 2023 Kerry Hall would be president. Hall had the highest favorability of all the officers. Hall would be followed by Bob Wood, who largely garnered positive votes of approval, and Don Deraska, who had an absence of disfavorable votes. The only problem is Kerry Hall, unfortunately, passed away and is no longer alive, leaving Wood and Deraska as the least disliked members of the board in 2023. Holly Fluty-Dempsy also saw an absence of disfavorable votes, equally making her presidential material. If community approval mattered, certainly none of the aforementioned board members, Bradley, Thomas, Cyr, Alter would be in a position of authority.

Is community approval not what an election is designed to measure?

Strikingly absent is any chain of custody. There is no chain of custody from the moment the property management firm receives a mail-in ballot until the time the votes are counted by two independent, third parties the day of the floor vote. There is ample opportunity for the board or individual board members to alter ballots that come into their possession.

It is also important to note that the property management firm, reports to the board and not the membership. Like the corporate lawyer, the property management firm serves at the pleasure of the board.

In past board communication the board stresses that the board takes election integrity very seriously. However, the board's recent decisions have weakened election integrity and not strengthen it. The board's recent decisions also ensure that evidence into wrongdoing will be destroyed within one year, allowing the board, the board members, who hold proxy ballots and other members, who wield power, the opportunity to cheat with impunity. Since the board passed a revised set of bylaws this past Spring, the HOA is now touting that the two so-called, independent vote counters pose as a check towards the integrity of the talley of the vote. However, the two so-called, independent vote counters receive the ballots at the floor vote. Where overvoting happens the overvoting of ballots happens long before the floor vote.

The board stresses that it takes election integrity very seriously, however the board's recent actions tell a very different story. I will delve into the board's recent actions that weaken election integrity in more detail later in the article.

A personal experience (2010)

In 2010 then president David Weicking approached me to run for a position on the board. I was hestitant to do so. Not only did I not have any experience participating on a board, but also at the time I lived in Toronto, Ontario, which is eleven hours away by automobile. Further, other than my immediate neighbors, at that time no one in the community knew me. At that time I owned the property at 20 Dune Road for seven years and rarely visited the property other than to oversee renovations and capital improvement projects on the property and I rarely visited over the course of the Summer season.

Ultimately, I acquiesced and accepted the challenge, all the while believing I had no chance of winning. So, there would be no harm if I lost. I certainly did not wish to disappoint my immediate neighbor at 15 Dune Road, David Wiecking.

In the 2010 board elections I was one of five candidates, vying for four open board positions. Two of the candidates were incumbent board members, leaving only Ellen Throop, Craig Kellerman, and myself as first time candidates. I thought the two incumbent candidates would easily win. Throop was an lawyer, specializing in community association law. I thought given her background Throop would easily win one of the four, two-year terms. Craig Kellerman, who worked at a large international law firm, had a history of making financial donations to the community. I was fairly certain he would also win a spot on the board. The only positive thing on my biography was the fact that I was (according to David Wiecking) the only owner of an oceanfront property, who volunteered his time towards dune grass planting activities. Is that really a high distinction, worthy of respect and praise?

I believe in nominating me for a position on the board, Wiecking's motivation was to have me on the board rather than Craig Kellerman. In fact he told me that. It was evident to me that Wiecking did not want Kellerman as a sitting member of the board.

The vote was taken and I reportedly lost to Craig Kellerman for the fourth two-year term by two votes. I anticipated losing, but I could not believe I only lost to Kellerman, a known presence in the community, by two votes, but Wiecking confirmed that as the spread. I thought at the time that the voting members of the community must have really liked my biography. There had to be reason. What else could explain being nose-to-nose with Kellerman? I had lots of questions; I lacked answers.

A second kick at the can (2018)

On July 29, 2018, I sent an email message to the then nominating committee chair, Sharon Adams, indicating I wanted to run for a position on the board, officially becoming a nominee for the 2018 election cycle.

Eight candidates were vying to fill four open board positions, including Mary Bird, Nancy Glasgow, Steve Larson, Alan Lescht, Marty Shecter, Ellen Throop, David Wolf and myself, Greg Pichler.

On August 19, 2018 I forwarded my biography to then president Geoff Sella. My biography was largely the same as the one I submitted for the 2010 election cycle. The only difference was that I had been a board member of an alumni association since 2016. So, I had at that time two years of experience serving on a board. At the time I held the position of web site manager for the association.

Steve Larson and Ellen Throop were incumbent candidates. Geoff Sella reportedly invited both Nancy Glasgow and Marty Shecter to run for a position on the board. No one on the board a pproached me to run for a position on the board. I ran for a position on the board on my own volition.

Over the course of the 2018 season Nancy Glasgow, Steve Larson and Marty Shecter were all vigorously involved in advancing a petition to the community to introduce an 8% rental tax. I was openly opposed to the proposal due to the simple fact that only tax authorities, like state governments, county seats and municipalities can levy a tax based on income. Incorporated home owners associations do not fall under the umbrella as being a tax authority.

The general election for board positions was held during the Fall meeting on Saturday, September 1, 2018.

Ultimately, Nancy Glasgow, Steve Larson, Marty Shecter, Ellen Throop prevailed and each won a two-year term on the board.

I reportedly missed the cut by 35 votes or thereabouts.

A third kick at the can (2019)

On July 27, 2019 I, again, announced my candidacy for a position on the board and forwarded my biography to then president Sharon Adams. My biography was exactly the same as the one I submitted for the 2018 election cycle.

Six candidates were vying to fill four open board positions, including Judy Bennett, Margie Cyr, Tristan Krueger, Mike O'Mara, Alex Sella, and myself, Greg Pichler.

Judy Bennett, Margie Cyr and Tristan Krueger were incumbent candidates. Geoff Sella presumably invited his son Alex Sella to run for a position on the board. Whereas Marty Shecter presumably invited his neighbor, Mike O'Mara to run for a position on the board. Again, no one on the board solicited me to run for a position on the board.

Over the course of the 2019 season board members Nancy Glasgow, Steve Larson and Marty Shecter were aggressively pressuring the board to initiate a covenant change, to establish a rental tax, in effect creating a third class of member. Given the scale of the tax rates, Nancy Glasgow, Steve Larson and Marty Shecter were in effect seeking to have 10% of the membership contribute 52% of the expense to operating the community. The proposed rental tax did not stipulate any rental service to rental property owners in exchange for the monies collected.

The general election for board positions was held during the Fall meeting on Saturday, August 30, 2019.

Ultimately, Margie Cyr, Tristan Krueger, Mike O'Mara, and Alex Sella, prevailed and each candidate won a two-year term on the board. Cyr reportedly attracted the largest number of ballots, followed by Krueger, who came in second.

I reportedly missed the cut again by 35 votes or thereabouts.

A whistleblower emerges

On September 26, 2019 or thereabouts I received a call from former board member, Tommy, not his or her real name. During the phone call Tommy stressed that only people the board invites to run for a position on the board get elected.

In looking back through the years, there is a strong correlation between the people, who are invited to run for a position on the board and the ones who ultimately get elected. Occasionally you see a person run, who was not invited to run for a position on the board, who gets elected. However, these situations are rare and had the last name of the person who ran unopposed had been Raskauskas, the people, who wield power, would certainly have recruited someone (the spouse of, or the child of) and would have likely thrown proxy ballots behind that person if history is any lesson.

In 2008 Glenn Hamilton reported that a member of the board approached him to run for a position on the board. Hamilton won a two-year term on the board. In 2018 then president, Geoff Sella, reportedly invited Martin Shecter and Nancy Glasgow to run for a position on the board. Both Shecter and Glasgow won two-year terms on the board against a large field of competitors. In 2019 Geoff Sella presumably invited his son, Alex Sella, to run for a position on the board. On August 30, 2019 Alex Sella delivered what was the briefest campaign speech in the history of the community. Sella called for the meeting to be adjourned and the members to reassemble on the beach. Sella said nothing more. In closing Sella gave out a rebel yell. Alex Sella won a seat on the board. I personally could not find a single member, who volunteered that they voted for Alex Sella. In fact one woman from the community volunteered that reason that she voted against Alex was because he was the son of board member, Geoff Sella.

That same year, Martin Shecter reportedly invited his neighbor, Mike O'Mara to run for a seat on the board. He, too, won in a large field of competitors. In 2020 vice president, Ellen Throop, invited Carol Paul to run for a position on the board. That year Paul was up against Marty Shecter for a seat on the board. In his campaign speech on September 19, 2020 Shecter thought it would be a good idea to launch into a vicious ad hominen attack against one of his opponents. [1] After doing so, not even his peers on the board, who reportedly held dozens of proxy ballots could save his candidacy. Paul narrowly defeated Martin Shecter by one vote to take his seat on the board, leaving Shecter to back fill the balance of the two-year term vacated by board member, Mike O'Mara, who quit in the Summer of 2020. Over the course of her tenure Paul rarely attended board meetings. Paul did not seek a second, two-year term. The 2022 board elections saw a number of new faces. In 2022 Margie Cyr reportedly invited Jerry Kafka, Ron Thomas and Paul Bradley to run for a position on the board. Kafka, Thomas and Bradley all successfully won a two-year term on the board.

Either these board members, who invite fresh recruits to run for a position on the board have a keen eye for the talent and marketability out of the field of candidates or alternatively, these board members and their peers on the board are taking deliberate action to ensure these candidates emerge victorious from hotly contested campaigns.

Shortly after our phone conversation I met with Tommy at his/her property in Middlesex Beach. During the meeting, Tommy told me about an incident where he/she visited then community president, David Wiecking, at his office at 15 Dune Road along with another board member in advance of an imminent board election. The two now former board members were both seeking re-election to a two-year term on the board. As the mood of the community was unfavorable towards the existing board members due to the board's willingness to engage in discussions with Blue Water Wind, (or some similar shore flap) the two now former board members were concerned about their prospects towards re-election.

As Tommy describes the story, David Wiecking, assauged the concerns of the two now former board members, assured them they would both be serving on the board after the imminent election was over and revealed a "pile" of what appeared to be mail-in ballots. The "pile" included at least "thirty" perhaps "forty mail-in ballots". Tommy left the meeting with the understanding that Wiecking intended to alter or overvote the ballots to redirect votes towards the campaigns of the two incumbent candidates.

Finally, I had a bonafide tip from an insider that explains the predictable nature of election results. I was ready to rock 'n roll in investigating what I had up until that point found so perplexing.

Advancing forward, in the Summer of 2023 I confronted David Wiecking about the allegations that Tommy articulated against him while meeting him on my outdoor deck. Wiecking did not immediately deny the allegations. In fact after I recited Tommy's allegations there was a noticable period of silence as Wiecking stared into space.

The 2020 Election Cycle Shore Flap

On September 23, 2020, after receiving yet another tip this time from a second whsitleblower that there were indeed vulnerabilities with the mail-in ballots, I sent a broadcast e-mail message, entitled, Statement of Retraction RE: Election 2020: Green Party Makes Advances at the Expense of the Proponents of the Rental Tax. [2]

In the body of the broadcast e-mail message I write:

The MXB Wire has retracted the article, Election 2020: Green Party Makes Advances at the Expense of the Proponents of the Rental Tax, after receiving information from a number of former board members into election tampering and in particular a scheme otherwise known as ballot hijacking. This service now believes that the election results were skewed in err due to the fact that one or several persons in authority directed third parties to consume ballots having no mention of an appointee in the first paragraph and resubmit these ballots with the selections of the person or persons in authority and not the selections of the originating owner of the ballot.
If the accounts and allegations are true, the election results more reflect the will of the person or persons in authority who orchestrated and directed the third parties to effectively steal the election rather than the will of the community members. If the accounts and allegations are true, the votes of the community members had little to no bearing on the results of the election.

On September 25, 2020 at 7:28 AM board member, Margie Cyr sent me an e-mail message, denying any inpropriety on the part of the board. [3] Cyr writes:

Greg:
What the heck are you talking about and why would you say such things? There is absolutely no truth to these published statements in any way, shape or form. If you are going to make allegations like this, you owe us an explanation for this.
Margie

I promptly sent Cyr a response, asking if she would agree to be interviewed so that I could better understand the election process.

On September 25, 2020 at 7:41 AM board member, Cyr sent me an e-mail message reply, brushing aside the interview request, while demanding an apology. [4] Cyr writes:

You owe us an explanation and an apology – promptly.
Margie

I again promptly responded to Cyr's second e-mail message, assuring her that I would investigate the allegations in more detail. I publicly stated that I in fact did not know whether members of community were altering ballots only that there reportedly had been a practice of doing so in the past.

I wrote back to Cyr, stating that the reports of the history of tampering were made by former board members and I was simply reporting what was reported to me.

Cyr promptly wrote back to me at 8:34 AM that same day. [5] Cyr writes:

It is 100% pure bunk. You should know better than to publicly print such inverified [sic] information. It spreads fake news and harms the community. You owe me and every member of the community an apology right away. Margie

On September 30, 2020 Cyr sent her own broadcast e-mail message on behalf of the board, stating the the allegations into election tampering were false. [6] In her broadcast e-mail message Cyr writes:

September 27, 2020
We are writing to update you on the recent MBA election for the Board of Directors, and to respond to a series of emails and articles from one of the candidates, Gregory Pichler. In his communications Mr. Pichler questioned the validity of the election results, and made other allegations regarding the election process itself.

We want to assure the Community that these allegations are not true, and that ensuring a fair and accurate election is a responsibility the Board takes very seriously.

The process followed this year is the same as in years past. The proxy is a standard form the Community has used for many years. No candidates participated in the counting of votes. Rather, a team of volunteer MBA community members were assigned to tally the ballots at the office of our management company, CAS, Inc. Separately, a team of two employees of CAS tallied the votes and, after this first tallying round was completed, the two teams met to compare the tallying results. This cross-checking yielded the same results.

In her broadcast e-mail message Cyr later writes:

[...] it is unfortunate that false and misleading information has been circulated to the Community, but we feel strongly that the Community can have confidence in the election process and the results of that process.

In fact the allegations by Tommy were not false and misleading. The allegations were true. The board indeed does have a history of manipulating board elections by overvoting the proxy ballots as will be revealed later in this article.

In any event I never apologized to the board or to the community as a whole for advancing the allegations of a former board member.

I, later, walked back some of comments I made as I did not have direct evidence that the 2020 election was tampered with at the time. I only had suspicions at that point that it had been tampered with. I needed further evidence and I knew how to go about getting it.

The quest for the truth

On February 25, 2023 I sent a broadcast e-mail message to a list of sixteen current and former board members, seeking information as to whether the addressee could bear witness to what Tommy, the initial whistleblower, was alleging. [7]

Firstly, in my broadcast e-mail message I sought to learn whether the recipient had in the past altered ballots that the recipient was named as proxy. Secondly, in my broadcast e-mail message I sought to learn whether the language on the ballot or legalese empowers the grantee any legal rights to alter the ballot.

Fifteen of the sixteen current and former board members did not respond, refusing comment.

On February 28, 2023 David Wiecking responded to my broadcast e-mail message. [7] In fact David Wiecking was the only former officer to respond. Apparently, Wiecking did not receive the memo that circulated, directing former officers to refuse all comment.

Wiecking admitted to overvoting and in effect altering ballots. He writes:

In my time, if anyone named me as proxy holder, I would distribute the votes evenly so that it wouldn’t have an actual effect on the winner. I don’t recall more than 10 such ballots ever being returned that way, and usually fewer than that. There was one year where I couldn’t distribute the votes equally among the 5 candidates, and believe I voted for the incumbents on all ballots, and split the remaining votes so that each non-incumbent received the same number of votes. If someone specifically filled out a proxy holder other than myself, I have no knowledge of how that was voted.

Firstly, David's account above lacks plausibility. Why would anyone alter ballots if the act did not bias one candidate over another? There is no requirement that the ballots must be fully voted. It makes no sense and lacks credibility.

David's account indeed may be consistent with the facts on a number of election cycles. Wiecking was community president for over five two-year terms. However, David's account does not align whatsoever with the one account from the whistleblower, indicating evasiveness of the whole truth of the purpose behind the altering of ballots. Wiecking is effectively minimizing his behavior.

I personally reject Wiecking's account and find Tommy's account more plausible.

Further, Wiecking's response along with other responses I have received from him form a pattern of evasiveness, which I will illustrate in more detail later in this article.

Later in Wiecking's response he addresses the language and legalese used in the mail-in ballots. Wiecking writes:

I’ve always found it odd that the proxy language frequently included language similar to “the proxies, at their discretion, are authorized to vote upon such other business as may properly come before this portion of the meeting”. As you are no doubt aware, the membership gets to vote on the assessment in May, and the Board members in September (or August). The only business that may properly come before the End of Summer meeting is to approve the Minutes and to adjourn at the end.

Not even Wiecking, who has presided over the community as president for over five, two-year terms, can articulate the dynamic nature of the language and legalese on the ballot that sets out the handling of proxy ballots and whether the grantee of the proxy ballot is empowered to alter the selections of grantor's ballot. Yet, he overvoted the ballots he was named as proxy anyways.

Given ever changing language and legalese that the community spews on a ballot, if you think you understand how a proxy ballot works, and what the grantee of a proxy ballot is empowered to do and not do, then you don't understand the legal treatment behind the proxy ballot.

repeated denials for access to the corporate records

On Sunday, April 23, 2023 I sent then president, Paul Bradley, and vice president Ron Thomas, an e-mail message, asking for access to the mail-in ballots of past election cycles. I wanted to see if I could determine how the ballots were being altered, who was altering them and what effect to the elections, if any, the alterations had.

On Friday, April 28, 2023 Paul Bradley responded to my request, denying access to the corporate documents. [9]

In his e-mail message response Bradley provides a number of reasons for the denial. Bradley writes:

[...] All books and records requests require that a proper purpose be stated to review the records and your request fails for the following reasons:

a) A proxy gives the holder of the proxy the right to take the action specified in the proxy document or, if no particular action or instructions are specified, to take action as he or she deems appropriate on behalf of the member giving the proxy. You have stated that one or more unnamed proxy holders voted on behalf of certain unnamed members giving the proxies which, on its face, is a proper act. A mere curiosity about how proxy holders may or may not have fulfilled their duties, without any meritorious allegations or credible evidence of wrongdoing, does not constitute a proper purpose.
b) Simply having an evaluative interest about the actions of certain proxy holders over the past 6 elections is a fishing expedition without a proper purpose.
c) Your request is vague and, thus improper, in that you do not identify the “former board member and president” or any other board members who you claim used a proxy in an improper manner, when that event occurred or that it had an effect on an election.

In reading Bradley's response, I was quite certain that had the man been tasked to manufacture another set of reasons for the denying access to the corporate documents, he could have easily done so.

I certainly had no intention of volunteering the identity of the first whistleblower. Had I given up Tommy, the first whistleblower, the board or an active board member would have harassed him or her to disavow his or her statements in short order as was done to Janice who I interviewed for the article entitled, Investigative Reports: Passed Over, Part 1 of 2. (see chapter, the practice of fear and intimidation)

So, I elected to wait him out. I had insider information at the time, that his tenure as community president was likely coming to an end.

On August 8, 2024 I sent an e-mail message to then community president, David Wiecking, Bradley's successor, again, asking for access to the corporate documents. On August 13, 2024 Wiecking responded, denying the request. [10]

In his response Wiecking parrots Bradley's reasons for denying the request. I thought that this was odd since in a private conversation that I had with Wiecking on my outside deck over the course of the Summer of 2023, Wiecking had assured me that any member or shareholder can gain access to what are otherwise corporate documents. The only legitimate reason a home owners association would have to deny such a request was if the bylaws specifically call for all elections to be held by secret ballot. Wiecking's opinion in 2023 aligns with that of litigation specialist, Dean Campbell. However, Wiecking's reasons for the denial went further than Bradley's reasons. Speaking about the 2023 board election, Wiecking writes:

You are factually incorrect. Board members did not handle the ballots and did not count the ballots. Rather, the property management representatives counted the ballots and the counting was checked by two MBA community members who were not board members. There was no board involvement.

This assertion runs counter to one of Wiecking's earlier accounts. In his e-mail response on February 28, 2023, Wiecking stated that he in fact did gain access to the mail-in ballots and that he was in fact altering ballots. [8] If true, then the policy of how ballot are handled have fundamentally changed since Wiecking's tenure prior to 2016.

Even if that were true, even if you could take what Wiecking says on face value, there is no mechanism to prevent the board from changing how ballots are handled over the course of the next election cycle. The property management firm answers to the board and not vis-a-versa. The entire process happens in a black box with no chain of custody.

I researched Wiecking's assertion which parrotted those made by Bradley that my request lacked a "proper purpose". Here is the legal opinion that resulted:

8 Del. C. § 220, also known as Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), gives stockholders of a Delaware corporation a qualified right to inspect the company's books and records.

For a stockholder to be able to inspect the books and records of a corporation, they must meet certain requirements. The demand must be in writing and under oath, stating a "proper purpose" for the inspection. A "proper purpose" is defined as a purpose that is "reasonably related to such person's interest as a stockholder." The demand must also describe the purpose and the records sought with "reasonable particularity," and the records must be "specifically related" to that purpose.

In this case, Weicking is referring to the legal requirements outlined in this section of the Delaware Code for a stockholder to be granted access to corporate records. His denial suggests that your request, in his view, did not meet these specific legal requirements, particularly the part about stating a "proper purpose" and describing the records sought with reasonable particularity.

Investigating potential corporate mismanagement or wrongdoing is generally considered a proper purpose under Section 220. However, the stockholder must establish a "credible basis" to suggest that mismanagement or wrongdoing may have occurred. This is a low burden of proof, but it's not a right to inspect the records out of "mere curiosity."

Other than the lack of my request being made under oath, none of Bradley's (nor Wiecking's arguments that parrot those by Bradley) have merit, according to the legal opinion above. I certainly have sufficient evidence to demonstrate that wrongdoing has occurred in proctoring past elections.

Unfortunately, the only avenue at my disposal to gain access to the corporate documents is by court order. The board was likely aware of this possible move as well. The board took steps to ensure no legal proceeding were to ever commence. The board moved to conducting elections by secret ballot.

the move towards elections by secret ballot

As with all my interactions with the board the board never acknowledges a problem exists. The board always doubles down. The matter of the altering of ballots or the selection of one set of ballots over another to bias a result is no exception. The dogged pursuit of the law suit with the Norman law firm is one such example. Starting in 2017 a number of us pleaded with the board to disengage from the law suit with the Norman Law frim as the rules the board adopted to block Norman from displaying an digital sign were not reflected in the covenants and therefore could not be legally enforced. Ultimately, after the association's reportedly spent over 120,000.00 dollars in the guise of liability insurance the association through its law firm settled with Norman and handed Norman 15,000.00 dollars in compensation while achieving few concessions from Norman in return.

In the Winter of 2025 the board would later change the bylaws under the guise of "modifying the bylaws to align with changes to DUCIOA". Apparently, the board does not require a plurality of the membership to change the bylaws. The board has the latitude to change the bylaws at the board's discretion.

In reality this was not the whole reason for the change to the bylaws. The board reportedly directed the corporate lawyer, Shreider-Fox, to add a paragraph to the bylaws to move the community from an open election process where the ballots are accessible as corporate documents to an election process by secret ballot where the ballots are kept confidential. The paragraph also sets out that the ballots be destoyed after one year from the election. That paragraph in the bylaws would effectively enable the board and other members, who wield power, to alter ballots with impunity. Given the slow pace of the legal industry, the ability to delay and adjourn court actions to later dates, nothing short of a court order could be done to prevent relative evidence of wrongdoing to be destroyed prior to having the opportunity to examine the corporate documents.

In the most recent March, 2025 board meeting I asked president Wiecking a question I already knew the answer to. Had the question been posed under oath, my question would have consituted what is known as a perjury trap. I asked Wiecking why the board added a paragraph that stipulated that all elections be performed by secret ballet. Wiecking replied: "Oh. That was just something the lawyer threw in." or words to that effect, minimizing his deliberate involvement. The correct answer I was expecting Wiecking to say was, "the reason was discussed in closed session and I cannot reveal the underlying reason for the paragraph."

However, rather than volunteer the truth, Wiecking was again, evasive. This again coupled with the past evasive statements by Wiecking constitutes a pattern of evasive communication by the man.

Later, on Saturday, May 3, 2025 at a social event following the community meeting, Kate Mounteer confirmed what I already knew, namely that the board did indeed direct the lawyer to move towards a secret ballot and in so doing put the corporate documents out of reach of any and all scrutiny.

I shared Wiecking's e-mail message, dated August 8, 2023 with Bob Aberbach. On August 14, 2023 Aberbach responded, offering an interesting take from reading Wiecking's response. Aberbach writes:

As I remember the process the answer you got from Dave tells it like it is.

Indeed. That is the way it is this year. Last year over the Summer of 2023, on the my screen enclosed deck it was a different matter. In 2023 Wiecking not only said to me that it is possible to gain access to what were otherwise corporate records, but he encouraged me to do so.

the practice of fear and intimidation

You would think that the utility derived from having control over the assets of a home owners association as well as how an annual budget in excess of 750,000.00 is spent would be sufficient for most people. However, a number of people, who wield power, the need for control does not necessarily stop there.

A number of people, who wield power, also seek to exercise control over communication. What community members say, both within and outside the community, can become material, particularly if these individuals believe what is being said can effect property values in the community.

In 2020 I received a tip from a real estate agent that a number of agents, who represent the buyers, were reluctant to show buyers property in Middlesex Beach. One real estate agent, who I interviewed and refer to as Janice, not her real name, said that the reason agents, representing the buyer, were reluctant to show property in Middlesex Beach was the agents would receive complaints from the buyer months after the sale, citing what they described as dysfunction between the elected board members and the community at large. Without going into the merits of whether the opinions were grounded in fact or whether the opinions did have an effect on property values, On November 24, 2020 I published my findings in the article entitled, Investigative Reports: Passed Over, Part 1 of 2. [12]

On November 24, 2020, the day the article launched, the real estate agent, who I interviewed and identify as Janice in the article, contacted me, demanding that any mention of her be retracted from the article. She said that a board member had contacted her, threatening that if she did not disavow her statements, the fallout could cause "difficulties" in her relationships with the other community members. The board member in question was an active member of the board of directors at the time the article launched.

At the time the interview subject contacted me, she had yet to read the article. In fact her identity in the article was hidden as I had initially agreed to do, however, evidently the board member, who contacted her, had deduced her identity possibly from a simple process of elimination. In effect the board member enjoined the agent from talking to what was otherwise a reporter. The real estate agent was so upset, she threaten to disavow having ever spoken with me or having been interviewed. The agent said that if I did not appease her wishes, she would publicly implicate me as a liar, who fabricated the entire story out of whole cloth.

Fortunately, for her after reading the article, after seeing that her identity was in fact hidden, she did not carry out the threat. I had phone records of the call I had with her as well as detailed notes from the interview, proving the interview happened.

(Editor's note: The identity of the individual board member, who contacted the primary interview subject mentioned in the article entitled, Investigative Reports: Passed Over, Part 1 of 2, is known and his/her identity is being withheld at this time.)

The rise and fall of board member, Ellen Throop (2010 - 2022)

The case study of board member, Ellen Throop, illustrates how the people, who wield power on the board, dispose of other board members, when these board members no longer work for them.

Ellen Throop was first elected to the board in 2010. Immediately, then community president, David Wiecking appointed Throop to chair the powerful legal committee. Throop rose through the ranks quickly. In 2011 the board elected Throop as Vice President under then community president, David Wiecking.

Throop remained as vice president, serving under three different presidents, including David Wiecking, Sharon Adams and Geoff Sella. On the election of Margie Cyr as president in 2020, Throop's responsibilities on the board began to wane. The board elevated Steve Larson, Cyr's hand-picked successor, as vice president in lieu of Throop. The board handed Throop the role of secretary, relieving Tristan Krueger of that responsibility. Prior to 2022 Tristan Krueger held the secretary position. It was also at this time that the board had formed an executive committee of board members, who effectively set down the objectives of board actions for the coming year. The members of the executive committee were reportedly Paul Bradley, Ron Thomas, Margie Cyr and Jerry Kafka. Throop was opposed to the formation of a select, executive committee and voiced her concerns to the board. The executive committee at that point reportedly had had enough of Throop.

Finally, in 2022, the people, who wield power on the board, squeezed Throop off the board presumably by way of overvoting proxy ballots. The people, who wield power on the board, replaced Throop (and a number of other incumbent candidates) with a number of fresh faces, (e.g., first time candidates), including Don Deraska, Bob Wood, Kerry Hall and Holly Fluty-Dempsy. Evidentally, Margie Cyr and the people loyal to Cyr thought it was high time for Throop to go.

Throop was reportedly upset. Throop is quoted as saying "I can't believe they voted me off the board." Throop was not referring to the community, she was presumably referring to the board members, who wield power, via proxy ballots.

In 2021 Krueger was also squeezed off the board. In 2020 Kruger failed to win a two-year term and back-filled the balance of a two-year term of a board member, who quit the board in mid-flight. The next year Abigail, Tristan's sister, reportedly told him not to bother running for a position on the board. Abigail reportedly told her brother he could not win. Apparently, Abigail knew something that Tristan didn't. In 2022 Krueger elected not to run for another two-year term on the board, heeding the advice of his sister.

References