Rumors and Misinformation

Our Auditor is a third-party audit firm (CPA firm) and every year they provide us with an Audit of the previous year’s financials. So, there is complete transparency. This letter was so inept that when the Auditor received it, they forwarded it to our accountant asking who is this person and why would they send this to us?

When our accountant answered the letter he included the Board President in the reply, so we are open to share it here. The items in red are where the accountant answered the basic accounting questions. The COA Accountant mentioned: “Looking at the questions it is apparent that this person has very little knowledge of accounting basics. “

---

There is no understanding as to why anyone would send this letter to the COA Audit company. To imply accounting irregularities to the company that is responsible for finding them just shows how little the author knows about accounting and the entire audit process.

The sheer irony of the situation is almost comical—it’s like writing to the police to report that the police might be committing crimes, without any evidence, and expecting the police to investigate themselves based on your hunch.

Here is a breakdown of why this letter was so profoundly counterproductive from a governance and accounting standpoint:

1. The “Auditor as the Messenger” Fallacy

The author of the letter fundamentally misunderstands the role of a third-party audit firm (CPA firm).

• The Author’s Mistaken Belief: They likely believed that by sending the letter to the Auditor, they were “going to the top” or alerting the ultimate authority. They probably thought the Auditor would be shocked, launch an internal investigation, and validate their concerns.
• The Reality: The Auditor is hired by the organization (specifically, the Board/Audit Committee) to examine the financials. They are independent, but they report to the organization. When they receive an anonymous or external letter implying the client they are currently auditing is cooking the books, they have a legal and professional obligation to take it seriously—but not by investigating the client in secret.
• The Actual Protocol: The Auditor’s first step is usually to inform management and those charged with governance (like the Board President) that they have received an allegation. This is exactly why they forwarded it to the accountant—they were effectively saying, “Your mail arrived at our office; please handle this.”

2. The “Transparency” Backfire

The author intended to cast shade, but instead, they highlighted the strength of the organization’s controls.

• The Forward: The fact that the Auditor immediately forwarded the letter to the accountant shows they have a professional relationship built on clear communication channels. They aren’t going to waste time on a vague, inept letter without context.
• The CC: By including the Board President in the reply, the accountant demonstrated complete transparency. They ensured that the governance body (the Board) was aware of the allegation and saw exactly how trivial and misguided it was. This actually strengthens the Board’s confidence in management, because it shows management has nothing to hide.

3. The Red Ink: Exposing the Lack of Knowledge

The items in red are where the accountant answered the “basic accounting questions.” This is the crux of the matter.

• The “I found a discrepancy” fallacy: Often, these letters originate from someone who sees a line item on a financial statement (like “Professional Fees” or “Miscellaneous Expense”) and assumes it is fraud because they don’t understand accrual accounting, prepaids, or allocations.
• The Implication: By implying accounting irregularities to the auditors, the author essentially insulted the auditors’ professional competence. Auditors spend weeks testing those exact numbers. To suggest they missed something based on a layperson’s misunderstanding of a debit/credit is to imply they are bad at their jobs. Hence, their reaction: “Who is this person and why are they bothering us?”

Why Send it to the Auditor?

Psychologically, the author likely sent it to the Auditor because they didn’t trust internal management. They thought, “If I send it to the accountant, they’ll hide it. I’ll send it to the outside police.” They failed to realize that in a properly governed non-profit or corporation, the Auditor’s first call is always to the accountant (and the Board) to say, “Hey, we got this weird letter.”

In short: The author tried to blow the whistle, but they didn’t know how to whistle, so they just blew air into a random pipe and were surprised when the air came back out in the Boardroom, annotated in red ink.

The Reserve Study is done by a third-party firm.

We have an entire section in our website concerning Reserve Study and how it works.

Understanding Reserve Funds and the Reserve Study | Jupiter Lakes Villas

It certainly seems easier to read that or research it online instead of demanding the company defend their work in front of a few Members at a Board meeting. The Board has little to do with the study except to inform them of projects that were recently worked on and what money was spent.

Debra London asked that I answer her questions and share with everyone, so the answers are in red below.

Rebuttal: Setting the Record Straight

Like the Audit firm, the Reserve Study firm does not include coming to a Board meeting and explaining what an Audit is or how it works. Certainly, there are plenty of details about this online.

We are a small community. We don’t need structural engineers looking over things that have been in place for decades unless a Reserve Study recommends that.

Small projects do not require Membership vote/approval – that is why the Board exists… Membership votes for people to be on the Board who look out for their interests, so they don’t have to be involved with, for example, how much money to spend on flowers at the entrance.

This signed letter appears to be an election promotion for the four candidates listed in the content.

Rebuttal to the Vela Campaign Letter

It has come to our attention that this signed letter was circulating in promotion of Barbara Vela and three other candidates for the Board. It must be noted that at least one of the four individuals listed had no knowledge that his name was being used to promote this agenda.

Regarding the content of the letter: During Barbara Vela’s previous time on the Board, the community witnessed the true definition of recklessness. Her tenure was marked by two surprise special assessments totaling almost $1,200,000. For her to now complain that the current board is not planning for the future is truly a slap in the face to the homeowners who had to pay for those unexpected bills. Most of the initiatives she criticizes us for not doing now are projects she could have addressed constructively when she held a seat on the board.

2019 and 2021 Special Assessments | Jupiter Lakes Villas

This latest letter tries to create distrust between the board and the community at any cost. Every claim made within it is either false or exaggerated, solely for the purpose of creating doubt. For example, the letter casually mentions projects that the current board is merely discussing as if they have already been approved and voted on. In reality, the first action of any good board is to discuss options and gather information before making decisions on behalf of the community.

While Mrs. Vela claims to be acting for the good of the community, her efforts to divide and create doubt are exactly the opposite of what a good board member should do.

After the above Barb Vela Letter was distributed. It became known to the board that Sydney was added to the letter without his approval or knowledge that they were saying such things. In fact, they never sent him a copy of the letter or put one on his doorstep.

Here is his letter to Barb Vela after he found out.

This “plain English” unsigned letter appears to be an election promotion for the four candidates listed in the content. It implies that the Board does not use plain-English but is instead somehow hiding details in the other kind of English.

We know that at least one of the four mentioned did not know any letters were being circulated with his name on it.

Rebuttal: Setting the Record Straight

Recently, an unsigned letter was circulated among our community. It was written to look like a “plain English” summary of events, but unfortunately, it contained misleading information designed to create confusion and distrust regarding a recent emergency repair and the actions of board members.

We want to address these points directly and transparently.

Regarding the Candidates and the Unsigned Letter:
The letter implies a coordinated effort by four specific individuals. We have confirmed that at least one of the candidates mentioned was completely unaware that their name was being used in this way. This tactic is not a good-faith effort to inform the community, but an attempt to manipulate opinion by associating people with a story they were not a part of. We believe our community deserves better than unsigned, misleading attacks.

Regarding the “Emergency Repair” Invoice:
Attached to the unsigned letter was a copy of an invoice for an emergency plumbing repair in a member’s unit. The letter implies this was a special, secretive favor for a board member. This is false. Let’s be clear about what happened and why.

1. It Was a Common Area Emergency: A pipe embedded in the concrete slab floor failed, causing a leak. The slab and the pipes within it are defined in our governing documents as a common area, and therefore the responsibility of the Association to maintain and repair. This is the same for every unit in our community.
2. It Required No Vote: Because this was an emergency repair to a common element, it did not require a membership vote, nor did it require ratification at a public board meeting to begin the work. The situation demanded immediate action to prevent further damage to the structure and the unit. The Board has a fiduciary duty to act swiftly to protect the community’s assets and mitigate further costs.
3. The Repair Decision: The contracted professional presented two options:
   • Option A: Jackhammer the entire kitchen floor to locate the specific leak in the slab and repair it. Estimated cost: $22,000.
   • Option B: Reroute the plumbing so that it bypasses the failed pipes in the slab entirely, fixing the leak permanently without destroying the kitchen. Estimated cost: $8,000.
     A majority of the Board approved the $8,000 option. This was not only the most cost-effective solution for the Association, but it was also the least disruptive for the homeowner. Any other unit in the same situation would have received the exact same consideration.

Correcting the Misinformation:
We have received reports that individuals have been going door-to-door, showing this invoice and claiming that the leak was “under the sink” and that the Association paid to replace the entire kitchen.

This is absolutely untrue.
As stated above, the leak was in the slab (common area). The repair was to the pipes in the slab (common area). There was no “new kitchen” purchased by the Association. The invoice you may have seen is for the emergency plumbing work to reroute the pipes—a necessary repair to a common element that the Association is legally obligated to maintain.

We understand that plumbing issues can be confusing. To be perfectly clear:

• Owner Responsibility: All plumbing inside the unit, above the slab (including fixtures, supply lines under sinks, and drain lines in the walls), is the responsibility of the homeowner.
• Association Responsibility: The pipes within the concrete slab, and the slab itself, are the Association’s responsibility.

We are sharing these facts to clear up the misinformation being circulated and to assure you that your Board is acting responsibly, transparently, and in the best financial interest of all members. We encourage you to reach out to any Board member directly if you have questions or concerns, rather than relying on unsigned letters and door-to-door rumors.

This unsigned letter was not sent to the Board or the Property Manager but instead just placed on doorsteps and gates around the community. The purpose of the letter besides trying to cast doubt on the Board’s decision making was to try to get Membership to complain based on a single person’s opinion.

That single person didn’t want to sign the letter but urged others to sign and repeat the misinformation. By the way there were no letters received by the board or the property manager’s office in regard to this “Concern.”

The entire BroadStar proposal, estimates from other providers, Board decision making and Project Plans have been on the COA website since the project was first discussed. Letters to the membership were sent (probably too many) at every step of the process. There were no secret agendas by the board or the mysterious “him.”

To Our Community Members,

Recently, an unsigned letter was circulated throughout the neighborhood, left on doorsteps and gates. Because this letter was anonymous and contained assertions that contradict the public record, we feel it is important to provide clarity to the Membership.

The Purpose of the Anonymous Letter
It appears the letter’s intent was to cast doubt on the Board’s decision-making process regarding the BroadStar proposal. While we welcome open dialogue and differing opinions, we are disappointed that the author chose to hide their identity rather than participate in constructive, transparent discussion. Urging others to complain based on unsigned, second-hand information is not how productive community governance works.

Setting the Record Straight
The author implies there have been “secret agendas” or hidden influences. This is simply not true.

• Full Transparency: The entire BroadStar proposal, all competing estimates from other providers, the Board’s deliberative process, and the final Project Plans have been available on the COA website since the very first discussion of this project.
• No Secrets: There were no backroom deals, no “secret agendas,” and no mysterious influence by any single individual. The Board’s duty is to the community, and our decisions are based on financial data, vendor qualifications, and long-term community benefit—all of which has been shared openly.

We encourage every Member to do their own research. Please visit the COA website to review the documents for yourself. We remain committed to transparency and are happy to answer questions at our next meeting.

Fiber Optic Infrastructure Upgrade | Jupiter Lakes Villas

Ms. Sulivan was elected to the Board in February of 2025. In April she wrote this email letter and also hand delivered it to the JLV COA lawyer. It had become increasingly apparent to the board at that time that she was sharing confidential board discussions and information with a few select members in the Association.

To contact the Legal Counsel of the board to ask them to investigate the board is basically “just weird.” You don’t ask legal counsel of an entity to investigate their own client: Attorney-Client Privilege.

It is the law – the board cannot and does not vote by email.

---

Here is a breakdown of why this action was not just “weird,” but a fundamental breach of governance protocol and a complete misunderstanding of the role of legal counsel.

1. The “Client” Confusion

Ms. Sullivan appears to have viewed the JLV COA Lawyer as a neutral, independent arbiter of justice—like a judge or a regulatory hotline you can call to “report” bad behavior.

• The Reality: The lawyer represents the Board (or the organization). The Board is the client. When you are elected to the Board, you become a part of the client.
• The Analogy: Asking the Board’s lawyer to investigate the Board is like asking your divorce attorney to investigate you because your spouse thinks you are hiding assets. The attorney cannot investigate their own client; they advise the client.

2. The Immediate Waiver of Privilege (The Irony)

This is the most ironic part of the scenario. By contacting the Board’s legal counsel to complain about the Board, Ms. Sullivan likely believes she is having a “private legal discussion.”

• However, because she is forwarding information about internal board discussions to the lawyer, anything she says is likely not privileged from the rest of the Board.
• The lawyer has a duty to the entity (the Board/Organization). If a board member writes to the lawyer making allegations about other board members, the lawyer may have a duty to inform the Board President or the rest of the board that such an allegation was made—especially if it pertains to governance risks.

3. The irony of her own actions

It was becoming apparent that she was leaking confidential board discussions to outsiders (select members in the COA).

• Her alleged action: Sharing board secrets with outsiders.
• Her complaint: (Presumably) about governance or transparency.
• The result: By writing to the lawyer to complain, she has now documented her own disregard for governance structure. If the lawyer is ethical, they would likely remind her that if she has concerns, she should raise them in the boardroom, not by trying to turn the attorney against their own client.

4. “Just Weird” is Accurate

It is “just weird” because it treats the lawyer as a parent or a police officer. In a functional board:

1. Disagreements stay in the boardroom.
2. Legal questions go to the lawyer, but they go through the Board President or the executive committee or are clearly defined as the board seeking advice.
3. You do not solicit the lawyer to build a case against the people sitting next to you at the table, because you are all the client.