Leisure World of MD- Mutual #7: Fear, Intimidation,Harassment and Retaliation

As is the case in many of the Leisure World of Maryland Mutual condo corporations, Mutual #7 has a relatively small (approximately 100) senior population membership, consisting of resident unit owners and “a large percentage of renters”. Their cookie cutter Bylaws require their Board of Directors “be composed of not less than 3 persons, a majority of whom shall be members (i.e. “owners”) of the Corporation.”

This instant case arose as a result of several residents (members and renters) speaking up about the heavy handed bully tactics and intimidating manner of a particular Mutual 7 Director. Regularly policing the Mutual, he walks around citing his skewed and less than factual bylaw interpretations to those he asserts are in violation, especially renters. Days prior to the recent Mutual annual election meeting, he told several renters they need not bother to attend the meeting, because they are “just renters”, “have no rights” and “can’t vote.”

At the organizational meeting held after the Annual elections, Mutual 7 President Kathleen Whitted announced that Howard Picus would be taking her place as the Mutual 7 representative on the Leisure World Community Corporation Board of Directors. Her stated reason was her inability to attend the regularly scheduled monthly LW BOD meetings because they are held on Tuesdays. Although 3 other Mutual Directors were ready to fulfill their selected alternate positions, Whitted announced they would not be needed because “Howie will be able to attend all of the meetings”.

Unlike the boiler plate bylaws of the Mutual, the “Qualifications of Directors” portion of the Leisure World Community Corporation Bylaws specifies that LWCC Directors must be “resident unit owners”, thereby making a renter or “occupant” ineligible.

http://lwmc.com/docs/Trust_Documents/LWCC_Bylaws_Revised_01-29-2013.pdf

Section 2. Qualifications of Directors.

“Any person who is a resident unit owner may serve as a Director, so long as he is not an employee of the Corporation, subsidiaries, the Trustee, the community developer or one of its affiliates, or an organization that maintains a business office in the community.”

For the past 5 years, his owner/membership status was simply assumed by the Mutual 7 residents. Further investigation reveals Picus is merely a long time “occupant” residing in the Whitted solely deeded home. Being merely an “occupant”, just like the renters he so begrudges, he is not entitled to member rights.

Mutual 7 members have now raised the question: how did Picus ever get seated on the Mutual 7 Board of Directors?

None of the members interviewed report having any recollection of seeing his name on a ballot over the past years. Kathleen Whitted has twice ignored the requests for proof showing Picus has ever been elected and/or the number of votes cast for him. She conveniently “selected” him to fill various vacancies over the years.

Attempting to further circumvent the “unit owner” bylaw regulation, and failing to obtain her Mutual Board of Directors authorization to do so, Whitted met with the Leisure World General Manager. Being asked for the exemption, he reports responding “Sure, why not?” before awakening to reality then uttering, “You better take this to the Leisure World Board of Directors”. Still failing to seek the Mutual’s authorization, Whitted submitted her disingenuous request to exempt Picus from ownership qualification. Her request was published as “correspondence” in the July 18, 2014 Leisure World Community Corporation Executive Committee Packet:

(http://lwmc.com/docs/agendas/ec/fullagendapacket/ec_agenda_packet_07-18-14.pdf)

In secreting the fact that 3 alternates had already been selected by the Mutual 7 Board of Directors, she deceitfully cited “difficulty” in “maintaining a Board of Directors due to lack of community support”. The request was not placed on the full Leisure World Board of Directors at their next or subsequent meetings.

An email was sent to the Leisure World Community Corporation Chairwoman Barbara Cronin, asking if all Leisure World Board of Directors representatives were in full compliance. She replied, “the officers presume that each mutual is sending us a person who fits the requirements as listed in our Bylaws.” The answer reflects that similar to the mutual, those representing the 29 Mutuals, (all of whom vote on such “minor” items as the resident funded $25 Million Dollar budget), are not vetted to assure they are owners.

Leisure World homeowners interests are best represented by those who are stakeholders. Presumably, those who are not owners could be less inclined to protect those interests in that they can simply walk away at the end of their lease, or in this instance, one who is not even a lease holder could wreck havoc. A fallacious power attempt is far from a precedent any Leisure World owner/member would agree as being in their best interest.

The Leisure World Board of Directors and the community at large must show support for those in this Mutual who when interviewed, expressed fear of further intimidation, harassment and retaliation should their identities be known.