June 19, 2008 Issue                                       

©2007 The Chestnut Hill Local

Execs address questions raised by board election
by PETE MAZZACCARO

The executive committee of the Chestnut Hill Community Association debated questions arising from the recent CHCA board election at its June 12 meeting but did not take specific action on the controversy.

The debate was sparked when CHCA President Tolis Vardakis read a letter from election judge Caroline Haussermann. The letter reiterated several points made earlier by Haussermann in an op-ed in the Local [June 5] in which the election judges said they had followed the proper procedures in dealing with the ballots, including their ultimate disposal 31 days after the April 23 vote.

They also indicated that they had re-examined the ballots and found only 25 irregular signatures, noting that nothing they found or disqualified would have changed the outcome of the election.

Questions about the recent CHCA election were raised more than a month ago by former CHCA president Ron Recko and by the Local, which noted that 65 new members had joined the association before the election deadline with cash payments, bringing with them 130 votes (two votes per household membership). Joining and voting the night of the election is not out of line with the association’s procedures, but the number of out-of-state voters — 49 percent from locations as far away as California, Washington state and Florida — was unusual.

Recko and the Local submitted requests via e-mail to review ballots, but the judges (1) did not accept the status of the e-mailed requests as valid (suggesting that e-mails did not constitute “in writing” requests), and (2) agreed, regardless of the status of the complaints lodged, that no entity other than the judges should review the ballots.

Recko questioned the validity of the judges’ assertions and took issue with the judges’ determination that his contact with them did not constitute a complaint.

“Did you receive a complaint from me or not?” he asked Vardakis

“You sent an e-mail to [election judge Katie Worrall] asking her to bring the box back to the CHCA to examine them,” Vardakis replied.

Aside from questions raised by Recko and the Local, election regulations stating that ballots should be kept at the CHCA’s offices for 30 days were not followed. The ballots were kept by the judges because CHCA officers said they believed the ballots would not be secure at the office in the absence of a community manager, a position that was vacant until June 9.

Former board member Anne Spaeth, who attended the meeting, said she was deeply concerned about the oversight and insisted that the officers had overstepped their authority by not following the regulations.

“No officer has the right to override a decision of the board,” Spaeth said.

Executive Committee Member Ed Berg said he had yet to see the specific text of any of the complaints made and asked those who had submitted complaints if they had made specific requests of the judges. The Local said it had requested an independent evaluation of the ballots in light of questions raised for the benefit of the community. [The text of the Local’s letter is printed below] and that it was never notified of the status of the request until it called on May 26 to verify that the ballots were already destroyed.

“I think if there’s one thing that happens — if there’s a complaint it should be answered,” Berg said to the committee.

Many of the committee members said they wanted to know what was the practical outcome of the inquiries into the election, and some suggested the debate was a waste of time and amounted to making a “mountain out of a molehill.”

Several members then suggested that the CHCA should form a committee to look into the questions raised, with particular attention to making sure clear procedures are put in place in the future to avoid similar questions. Committee member Pat Moran said he felt the CHCA should form its own committee to address the questions and not leave the matter up the election judges, who said they would present improvements in procedure at a later date.