Two Systems of Access?
What 175 East Delaware’s June Board Meeting Revealed About Transparency, Records, and Governance
The June 15, 2026 board meeting at 175 East Delaware Place may ultimately be remembered not for what the board approved, but for what it revealed.
Board members outnumbered owners in attendance by approximately five to one. The agenda included artwork, lobby improvements, pest control, package delivery, and owner records requests. On the surface, it looked like a routine condominium board meeting.
It was not.
Beneath the discussion was a larger question that has surfaced repeatedly at 175 East Delaware over the last several years:
Do all owners have equal access to association information, or do different rules apply depending on who is asking?
The answer matters because transparency is not measured by whether records exist.
Transparency is measured by whether access to those records is administered consistently.
The Records Debate
The most revealing discussion of the evening concerned a proposal to prioritize electronic delivery of association records when those records already exist electronically.
The proposal was straightforward:
Continue legal review and redaction.
Continue protecting confidential information.
Continue allowing paper copies when requested.
Deliver records electronically when those records already exist electronically.
The motion failed by a wide margin.
The discussion surrounding the proposal was far more interesting than the vote itself.
Several directors expressed concern that electronic delivery would make records requests easier.
Others worried that owners might submit more requests.
Still others questioned whether some owners requesting records actually intended to review the records they requested.
One director suggested that requiring physical inspection creates a useful barrier because some owners never appear to inspect the documents.
Think about that for a moment.
The discussion was not primarily about compliance.
It was not about efficiency.
It was not about reducing administrative costs.
Instead, much of the discussion focused on preserving friction in the records-request process.
That friction does not affect all owners equally.
Throughout the discussion, directors focused primarily on the burden imposed upon management. Considerably less attention was paid to the burden imposed upon owners.
Directors discussed compiling records.
They discussed redactions.
They discussed review procedures.
They discussed administrative workload.
What received far less attention were the costs borne by owners required to schedule inspections, travel to the management office, review paper records, and create their own electronic copies of documents that may already exist electronically.
For a building with a substantial population of seasonal, investor, and out-of-state owners, that distinction matters.
Access is not merely a question of whether records exist.
It is also a question of whether owners can realistically obtain them.
That is a remarkable position for a board governing more than 700 units.
Making Access More Difficult
Perhaps the most striking comment came from Technology Committee Chair Jacob Lopata.
One might expect the director most closely associated with technology to support modernization and digital access.
Instead, Lopata stated:
“I think we should give some thought in ways we can make it significantly more difficult or costly for people, especially continuing to make requests over and over again.”
It is a remarkable statement from any fiduciary.
It is particularly notable coming from the individual responsible for helping guide the association’s technology initiatives.
The discussion was no longer about whether electronic delivery would save time.
It became a discussion about whether access itself should be made more difficult.
That distinction matters.
Where Is the Data?
The discussion included repeated references to owners who allegedly request records but fail to appear for inspection.
That assertion became one of the principal justifications offered for maintaining barriers to electronic access.
Yet an obvious question follows:
How often does that actually happen?
Following the meeting, an owner requested that Board President Scott Timmerman provide the underlying data supporting statements made during the May and June board meetings.
According to correspondence reviewed by the author, the owner specifically referenced a spreadsheet maintained by management that Timmerman had previously cited during public discussion.
The owner wrote:
“Since you have already reviewed that data to assert that owners fail to pick up their documents, extracting the exact numbers should be straightforward.”
He further noted:
“The responsibility to produce that verification is yours.”
As of publication, the requested supporting data has not been produced.
That does not mean the underlying claim is incorrect.
It does mean owners currently have no way to independently evaluate whether the behavior repeatedly cited during the board’s discussion is rare, occasional, or widespread.
When anecdotal observations become the basis for governance policy, supporting data matters.
Otherwise, owners are being asked to accept conclusions without being given the information necessary to verify them.
“All the Other Buildings Have Done Paper”
The discussion also included comments from Community Association Manager Cristina Cozma.
When electronic delivery was discussed, Cozma stated:
“All the other buildings have done paper.”
She further explained that the majority of the effort associated with records requests involves compiling and redacting documents rather than the final method of delivery.
That observation raises an obvious question.
If the real work is locating, reviewing, organizing, and redacting records, does requiring owners to inspect paper copies actually reduce the burden?
Or does it simply transfer that burden to owners?
The board appeared to view the fact that other associations use paper-based inspection procedures as evidence that the current system is reasonable.
Owners may reach a different conclusion.
Common practice is not necessarily best practice.
More importantly, “other buildings do it this way” is not a governance standard.
The Illinois Condominium Property Act defines owners’ rights.
Industry habit does not.
The argument is also less persuasive than it first appears.
Based on my own experience with other Sudler-managed associations, electronic production of records is not unheard of. At least one association within the same management structure has provided records electronically rather than requiring paper-only inspection.
Whether electronic production is common or uncommon is ultimately beside the point.
The real question is whether 175 East Delaware’s policies are being evaluated based upon convenience, tradition, and habit—or based upon transparency and owner access.
The Candidate Night Admission
The June board meeting becomes even more interesting when viewed alongside statements made during the association’s Meet the Candidates Night before the 2025 election.
During that event, Board President Scott Timmerman reportedly acknowledged that he receives an electronic list of owners and mailing addresses each year.
According to statements made publicly, the purpose is to continue a tradition spanning more than two decades in which the association’s president endorses a slate of some 24 (twenty-four) candidates for the board of directors.
Those endorsement letters expressly state that the endorsements are being made in the president’s personal capacity.
Whether one agrees with the endorsements themselves is irrelevant.
The governance questions are different.
What policy authorizes annual distribution of the electronic owner list?
Is a written request required?
Is board approval required?
Are other directors offered the same access?
Are other candidates offered the same access?
Are owners informed that such information is available electronically?
Most importantly:
Would any other owner receive the same treatment?
The June board meeting offered no answers to those questions.
Instead, owners heard extensive discussion regarding why electronic access to association information should remain difficult.
Two Systems of Access?
This is where the issue becomes difficult to ignore.
Ordinary owners seeking information are generally expected to:
Submit written requests.
Wait for review.
Accept redactions.
Schedule inspections.
Travel to the management office.
Review records in person.
At the same time, the association’s president reportedly receives an electronic owner list annually for election-related communications made in his personal capacity.
If both statements are true, owners are left with a simple question:
Why?
If electronic information is appropriate in one circumstance, why is it inappropriate in another?
If management can provide information electronically to one owner, why not all owners?
Transparency loses credibility when access depends upon identity rather than policy.
The Larger Question
Every condominium association eventually faces a choice.
It can embrace transparency as a governance principle.
Or it can treat transparency as a compliance obligation.
Those approaches produce very different cultures.
One encourages trust.
The other encourages suspicion.
The June board meeting suggested that 175 East Delaware remains caught between those two philosophies.
The board clearly recognizes that owners are demanding more information.
What remains unclear is whether the board views that demand as a sign of engaged ownership or an inconvenience to be managed.
Final Thought
The board’s discussion revealed something larger than a disagreement about records requests.
It revealed two competing visions of governance.
One vision views information as something owners are entitled to receive unless there is a compelling reason to withhold it.
The other views information as something owners may obtain only after overcoming procedural barriers designed to limit access.
The difference between those philosophies shapes everything else.
It shapes trust.
It shapes participation.
It shapes elections.
It shapes accountability.
And ultimately, it shapes whether owners view their association as a community they govern—or an institution that governs them.
Until owners receive a clear answer on that point, the question will remain:
Does 175 East Delaware operate under one system of access—or two?
Source Materials
June 15, 2026 Board Meeting Recording
Related board documents and owner communications
Correspondence regarding records-request statistics
Meet the Candidates Night statements concerning owner-list distribution
If you found this article valuable, subscribe to The Governance Ledger for independent analysis of condominium governance, financial reporting, reserve funding, elections, transparency, and owner rights.
Beyond the Budget™: Understanding the Numbers Behind HOA Governance
Many of the issues discussed at the June 15 board meeting—from records access and transparency to reserve funding, budgeting, and financial oversight—ultimately trace back to a common challenge: owners and directors often lack the financial tools needed to independently evaluate management and board decisions.
To address that gap, Common Interest Advisors created Beyond the Budget™, an Illinois CAM continuing education course designed for board members, finance committee members, owners, community association managers, and industry professionals.
Topics include:
Reading and interpreting association financial statements
Reserve funding and reserve study analysis
Budget preparation and financial oversight
Identifying hidden financial risks
Evaluating management and board decision-making
Understanding the difference between compliance and governance
The May 2026 cohort has concluded, and the June 2026 cohort started last night.
Future cohorts are currently being scheduled.
For information regarding upcoming sessions, visit www.cia.mba/services-beyond-the-budget.
If you found this article valuable, subscribe to The Governance Ledger for independent analysis of condominium governance, financial reporting, reserve funding, elections, transparency, and owner rights.
Free consultations may be scheduled through Common Interest Advisors at www.cia.mba.
Cannot believe that this same issue still remains a problem after 63 years. It just reflects the ineffectiveness of the City and State regulatory agencies.