SaveTheHill.org

***TOP SECRET*** by Kevin Wine, Aug 26, 2025, 10:28 PM, reply, branch, edit

In the mind of our Board leadership, the following is a TOP SECRET communication. But I don't care. Democracy dies in darkness, and you have a right to know what has been going on the last 2 days.

Before I get in to the drama, don't forget there is a Meet the Candidate's Night scheduled for Wednesday, August 27th, 7:00PM at the Clubhouse and on zoom via:

https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87918891901?pwd=ZS4YFlC5AIM93XTrkjXu7koBpGF0KI.1

Think of some good questions for candidate's night. There should be plenty of material here!

On Monday afternoon, there was a flurry of internal board/management email after a candidate was discovered missing over the weekend. The management company offered to resolve the problem by absorbing the cost of sending another mailing with all 7 candidate profiles and a corrected ballot with all 7 candidates.

After some more internal discussion an internal Board "email vote" was taken. Everyone was in agreement to re-send all the profile statements, but 2 board members wanted to send a new ballot with all 7 candidates as management had offered, and 4 other members voted to NOT send a revised ballot and instead tell owners to vote for Zahid Khan as a "Write-In" candidate at the bottom of the existing ballot.

A "Write-In" candidate is at a considerable disadvantage over the other candidates whose names appear directly on the ballot. Even if it is explained in a letter or email, not everyone is going to understand and it will cost the Write-In candidate some votes. These elections are typically very close and every vote matters.

Both Mohiuddin Syed and Mark Kelsey, who are candidates in this election and on the ballot, participated in the Board email vote on Monday afternoon. With President Syed's moral objection to conflicts of interest (see his profile), he should be the first one to recuse himself from such a vote/decision. He is deciding on a matter in which he stands to receive a direct benefit by increasing his chances of winning a seat by disadvantaging a rival candidate.

The NJ law controlling the format of the ballot in condominium board elections clearly says that all candidates must be on the ballot:

N.J.A.C. 5:26-8.9(l)1.iv(2) The ballot shall contain the names of all persons nominated and found to be in goodstanding as candidates for the executive board in alphabetical order by last name.

In spite of some further appeals to include a revised ballot, the Board went ahead and ordered the management company to do something illegal and in direct violation of NJ statute. The management company folded, and did what it is ordered to do. The Association's attorney, Susan Radom, also went along with the plan. I later found out that there was a meeting between Ms. Radom and the property manager and select Board members Monday afternoon, but neither I nor Anthony were told about such a meeting or invited to attend. Clearly they know that what they are doing is in violation of the condominium laws and that we will challenge them on it, so they just hide the meeting from us.

In one of President Mohiuddin Syed's emails he included a threat to any board member that distributes his emails on this topic. He does not want to be distracted from doing illegal things that give him a strategic advantage in the election.

Then I got home after work Monday evening, went to the mailbox and found the election mailing. I opened it up and finally saw the ballot for the first time ever. As expected, Zahid Khan was missing. But that wasn't the only issue - what else does it say in N.J.A.C. 5:26-8.9(l)1.iv(2) above? How about "...in alphabetical order by last name." Uh oh. The names are in alphabetical order - by FIRST name - almost. For some reason "Mark" and "Mohiuddin" are reversed. "Mark" should be in the third slot by first name, but instead it's "Mohiuddin". Hummm.. that's interesting - if the candidates were in proper order Mohiuddin Syed would be last in the list, but now all of a sudden he and one of his friends are in the 1-2-3 positions, waiting for a little bump from the proverbial "1-2-3" voters. Nice. Now I finally know why they didn't want any other Board members to see the ballot before it was mailed out. Was this another "accident"? Or innocent oversight? It's not looking good.

So the ballot is flawed in two ways - one candidate is totally missing, and the candidates are not in the proper order. Technically, it's flawed in a third way - there are only supposed to be three "Write-In" slots and instead there are 4. And the instructions refer to a colored ballot envelope, but the envelope is white. And there are no instructions about tearing off the return address flap and making sure the address shows through the windowed envelope. This is going to confuse so many people.

Then it's Tuesday. In fairness to the parties involved, I made another attempt to speak with the First Service Regional manager, but regrettably she still has not returned my call after multiple voice mails and emails. While management is caught up in the middle of this situation, I would still expect a call but I guess they are choosing sides, in spite of declaring today that they are not choosing sides.

After receiving no response to my email about the error with the candidate ballot positions, I got on my bicycle around 3 and rode over the post office to send an election violation complaint to the NJ DCA. It turns out the DCA does enforce election law violations in condominium associations, but it might take a while. All the Board had to do was add one more piece of paper to the new profile mailing the management company was already sending, for free, and the problem would be solved. Instead they decide to double down on their untenable position resulting in increased costs and administrative work for the Association. And this could very easily go further to litigation as a result of the Board's "we are going to do whatever we want, and if you don't like it, sue us" attitude.

After some further internal email exchanges, I am beginning to realize that this board, and President Syed in particular, think that their position entitles them to operate with social and legal impunity. They think they are in some other "class", where the rules don't really apply to them and they can do whatever they want, who cares how many people it hurts or causes stress to or what the law says. That would explain a lot of the behavior we are seeing.

Kevin