The Board's decision to utilize an outdated voter log for the 2024 election raises significant concerns regarding the integrity and fairness of the Estates II election process. This choice reflects poorly on the Board's commitment to honesty and upholding democratic principles, suggesting a troubling disregard for due diligence in managing essential electoral documents. Furthermore, it casts doubt on the Board's overall governance and operational conduct.

The evident reliance on an antiquated voter log raises suspicions about the legitimacy of the electoral process. The decision to engage an external entity for vote counting appears to be a mere façade—a tactical maneuver intended to obscure the underlying issues. It is increasingly apparent that the Board may have operated under a predetermined outcome, undermining the very essence of fair representation. Any responsible entity with a commitment to ethical standards would recognize the indefensibility of certifying an election conducted under such questionable circumstances. It would be helpful for the board to have the person who certified the election come back and address the residents face to face. Consequences of the outdated voter log: 

1. Inaccurate Representation: The outdated voter log does not accurately reflect current ownership or residency in Estates ll. This could lead to ineligible voters casting ballots or eligible voters being excluded, compromising the election's legitimacy.

A few of the numerous incorrect property ownership claims:

The 2021 voter log used for the 2024 election incorrectly lists Steve and Julia Roman as the owners of 96 Dove Hill Dr, while in reality, another family currently owns the property.

The 2021 voter log used for the 2024 elections incorrectly lists Celia Zisfein as the owner of 100 Crows Nest, while in reality the Schwinger family owns the property.

The 2021 voter log used for the 2024 elections incorrectly lists Gary & Marlene Gross as the owners of 93 Dove Hill Dr., while in reality Debbie Shalom owns the property.

Same with 98 Crows nest, which incorrectly lists the Lenzo family as the owners.

2. Manipulation Risk: Using an outdated log could be perceived as a way to manipulate the outcome of the election. The board could potentially exclude certain voters who might oppose them or include individuals who are no longer eligible.

3. Trust Issues: Such practices may undermine trust between the condo board and residents. If residents believe the election process is not transparent or fair, it can lead to discord and disputes within the community.

4. Legal Implications: Depending on the bylaws of the condominium or state laws, using an outdated voter log might violate regulations governing elections in condo associations. This could potentially open up the board to legal challenges or require them to redo the election.

5. Improper Verification: The fact that the board did not bother to update the voter log before the election reflects poorly on their governance practices and their commitment to ensuring a fair election process. Residents can assume last year's election was also compromised by use of the same 2021 voter log.

Using an outdated voter log could facilitate unfair practices in an election,  leading to significant consequences for both the elected board and the condo community.  If residents suspect wrongdoing, it may be advisable to raise concerns with the board and consider seeking legal advice. 

Estates ll Board of managers: Alan Rothenberg, Cindy Davidowitz, Debbie Resnick, Stephen Fanuka, Stephani Michele, Donald Feldman, Donna Geffner, David Hoffman