By Steven Dahlman

17-Dec-24 – A recent election at 175 East Delaware Place has left residents at the Hancock Center homeowners association scratching their heads over voting results.

On October 8, Salvi Gupta was initially declared the winner of a seat on the 48-member condominium board. She even received a congratulatory email from the property manager, along with a welcome packet for new board members.

However, hours later, Gupta’s victory was snatched by the discovery of a “sorting error” in an Excel spreadsheet. Another candidate, Elizabeth Yelda, was declared the winner.

Drew McManus was suspicious. The Hancock resident, a vocal critic of the condo board, noted the total vote count, which arguably should not be affected by a sorting error, suddenly increased without explanation after ballots were tabulated.

“While a ‘sorting error’ in an Excel spreadsheet might shuffle things around, it doesn’t magically create new votes,” wrote McManus (left) on his website, an online resource for HOA governance. “It’s like reaching into an empty cookie jar and pulling out extra cookies. Something doesn’t add up.”

It was not reassuring that the new winner had the endorsement of the board president, Scott Timmerman, and Gupta did not.

McManus says his multiple requests for clarification – to Timmerman, property manager Jennie Kobzarev, and Ralph Picker, whose company, Picker & Associates, was in charge of counting votes – have been met with “vague responses or no response at all.”

He has urged homeowners at 175 East Delaware Place to contact Timmerman and request a review of the election by a third-party auditor and a new election.

“This lack of accountability raises fears of litigation and further property value depreciation,” said McManus.

According to McManus, issues discovered, after examining just 25 percent of the ballots, include mis-recorded votes such as a “sample ballot” distributed by Timmerman being counted as a real vote. Also, he says, time stamps, an anti-fraud measure, were missing from all the ballots, and some ballots showed handwritten ownership percentages while others retained the original printed percentages from Picker & Associates. And he says some ballots from multi-unit owners were destroyed.

“These irregularities are more than just clerical errors. They raise serious questions about the accuracy of the final vote count, the integrity of the election process, and the board’s adherence to HOA voting rules,” McManus said.

By late November, some progress was being made. McManus heard back from Timmerman and from Kobzarev. He says the property manager told him, “The votes have been counted and re-counted, and the official results have been confirmed and certified. The final certified election results have been confirmed, and those are the only results that count.”

McManus called it “a circular response” and says that “critical issues remain unanswered.”

Unit owners warned of unofficial election night results, says Picker

Reached on December 30, Ralph Picker clarified that election night results are “tentative and subject to change” and “unofficial.”

“Those words were clearly communicated to the unit owners on that night,” said Picker, a Certified Public Accountant and Certified Fraud Examiner. “The next day we certify the results. As there were 6,000 entries made into a spreadsheet program on the day and night of the election, it is a customary and an accepted procedure to certify a day later when votes are checked again, including sorting of results, and making any input adjustments.”

There can be different vote counts between official and unofficial results, explained Picker, but, he says, “we stand by our certified results.”