UCO Ethics.

Am I alone in finding a certain amount of validity in Peter Amato’s suggestion that UCO should have an ethics committee?

(Peter Amato’s paid political advertisement, published in the latest issue of the Advocate.)

Whilst most of us realize that we are fortunate indeed to have such a dedicated group of hard working UCO volunteers, there does appear to be an ill-conceived assumption that UCO has the right, or more importantly the power, to dictate association policy.

In fact, although a minority would continue to have us believe otherwise, the reverse is true.

It is the delegates – representatives of the 309 associations that direct UCO’s budget and actions.

As UCO’s constitution recognizes, it is an advisory body staffed by volunteers.

Unfortunately, this advice is sometimes ill founded and in some cases downright unethical.

Last month, in direct conflict to its own bylaw: UCO shall not interfere with the internal affairs of any condominium association, three of its’ members chose to hold an unofficial meeting to report and instruct Southampton B residents on the now notorious recent ‘Century Village Insurance Mold Rush’.

Without the benefit of law school - and the required degree, one, I was told, instructed the meeting on specific specialized area of law.

Another, authoritarian of insurance matters - whilst pontificating over a particular case, managed to terrorize some of our more vulnerable residents with the toxicity of mold, leaving them to ponder immediate hospitalization and imminent death.

Meanwhile, the instigator of this unofficial meeting, whose motive remains unclear, rallied the residents as a direct result of an unofficial email regarding Southampton B’s Insurance. I am reliably informed she nodded approvingly of her equally unethical colleagues as each moot point was raised.

UCO President Lowenstein has chosen to ignore this transgression and perhaps he and his three associates should be reminded that illegal is not a sick bird!

Maybe now is the time remind them that being part of the UCO hierarchy does not exonerate them from accountability as their counterparts in the Insurance Scandal of Century Village Deerfield Beach have discovered to their cost.

Perhaps too, as the UCO delegates consider their vote for the March election they should reflect that the best people for the job are seldom the ones who shriek and scream the loudest. They are the ones who consider their advice carefully, recognize its implications as well as their own limitations and do not abuse the trust that residents have placed with them.

Along with the many other ‘interesting’ points raised by Mr. Amato the suggestion of an ethics committee sounds like a valid one.