Legal-Issues

Arbitration Ruling Voids January 23, 2025 Election — Orders New Election

Dear Neighbor,

As a fellow resident I am writing to inform you of a process that’s been concealed and an important decision that affects our community.

This past Monday, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation has issued a binding arbitration decision that voids the Flagler Pointe January 23, 2025 board election due to multiple violations of Florida condominium election law and procedure. The case, Conway v. Flagler Pointe Condominium Association, Inc., Case No. 2025-02-4955, was decided on July 14, 2025.

The arbitrator has ordered a new election, to be monitored by a state-appointed election supervisor, and found four key issues that rendered the prior election invalid:

1.    Inappropriate Letter by Board Members

The arbitrator found that the campaign letter co-authored and distributed by then-treasurer Nancy Sarris and prospective board member Joanna Elm to over 150 owners improperly influenced the election. While sent from personal accounts, the arbitrator wrote:

“Even though [Ms. Sarris] may be a candidate for an upcoming election, a sitting board member must refrain from engaging in what is typically referred to as ‘electioneering speech’… such speech could reasonably be construed by members of the association as the official position of the board of directors and hence be given greater weight than that of the ‘Average Joe’ candidate.”

This conduct contributed to the order for a new election.

2.    Improper Use of Candidate Information Sheets

The Candidate Information Sheets (CIS) submitted by Ms. Sarris, Ms. Elm, and Mr. Parkhurst were found to violate Florida Administrative Rule 61B-23.0021(7), which states that CIS content must be limited to background, education, and qualifications.

The arbitrator wrote:

“The arbitrator agrees that the CIS of candidates Elm, Sarris and Parkhurst contain statements that are not permitted by Rule 61B-23.0021(7)… [They] included personal attacks and disparaging statements regarding another candidate.”

Although the arbitrator acknowledged that all four candidates, including Mr. Conway, submitted CISs that violated content rules, he emphasized:

“Rule 61B-23.0021(7), F.A.C., prohibits an association modifying the content of a CIS… the association shall not be liable for the contents of the information sheets prepared by the candidates.”

Thus, the improper content was noted but not attributed directly to the Association as grounds for a new election.

3.    Improper Legal Response During Campaign

On January 9, 2025, the Association sent a legal letter (“Hudson Letter”) via official email to all owners responding to Mr. Conway’s CIS. While it did not accompany the Second Notice, the arbitrator ruled this action violated the required neutrality of the Association:

“The dissemination of the Hudson Letter by the Association using the Association’s official email service during the election process cannot be condoned.”

He added:

“To allow an association to use a letter from counsel to rebut or otherwise comment on the contents of a CIS or the candidate… would create a loophole by which an association could depart from its role as neutral and impartial facilitator of an election and assume the role of advocating for or against a particular candidate.”

4.    Ballots Counted Outside View of Owners

The ballots were counted in a separate room from where unit owners were gathered, contrary to legal requirements. The arbitrator rejected the defense that owners could walk between rooms and stated:

“Unit owners have a right to be at the meeting and to have the ballots opened and counted in their presence… Unit owners can’t be in two different places at the same time.”

This procedural error further invalidated the election.

What Happens Now

The arbitrator ordered:

• The results of the January 23, 2025 election are VOID.

• A new election must begin with the mailing of a corrected First Notice by July 25, 2025.

• All Candidate Information Sheets must only contain: background, education, and qualifications — nothing more.

• The new election will be monitored by a neutral, state-appointed election supervisor.

• The Association must secure a meeting space large enough for both the annual meeting and ballot counting to occur in the same room.

Next Steps

The Potential for Escalating Legal Costs for Flagler Pointe Residents

Under Florida law, the arbitration decision is binding unless the Flagler Pointe Board decides to contest the arbitrators decision in court.

The association will be required to not only cover the substantial costs a legal trial, but also the legal costs of the petitioner, if he prevails.

According to the order:

“This decision shall be binding on the parties unless a complaint for trial de novo is filed within 30 days in accordance with Section 718.1255(4)(k), Florida Statutes...”

This means the Association has 30 days from the date of the ruling (July 14, 2025) to either:

• Accept the arbitrator’s decision and proceed with the new election as ordered, or

• File a lawsuit in circuit court to contest the decision through a “trial de novo.”

If the Association accepts the ruling, the new election process — including the appointment of a state election monitor — will begin as scheduled.

If the Association files for a trial, the new election would be delayed pending court proceedings, dramatically increasing legal costs and prolonging uncertainty for the community.

Moving Forward Together

The ruling underscores the legal and ethical obligation of the board and Association counsel to remain neutral in all matters concerning board elections. The community deserves a fair and transparent process, free of personal attacks, official interference, or procedural confusion.