Court says Hopkins condo critic has the right to be offensive in long feud
Star Tribune
By John Reinan
26 December 2015
Mel Pittel is an unlikely poster boy for First Amendment rights. In his
long fight against the board of the Meadow Creek condo complex in
Hopkins, Pittel admits that he’s sometimes “crossed the line” — netting
him three criminal charges, a restraining order and civil judgments
against him totaling more than $460,000.
Yet Pittel now has something else to show for his fight — a ringing
defense of his free speech rights from a Hennepin County court referee.
And he may have something else, too: a seat on the condo board that he’s spent the last five years vilifying.
“I have fought as an advocate for fairness and for the owners,” said
Pittel, 71. “My basic reason is transparency, accountability and
change. People are entitled to the information [about the condo
association], and they’re being kept from that information. And I care
about the community where I live.”
That community is the largest condo complex in Minnesota, with more than 530 units and more than 1,000 residents.
About five years ago, Pittel became upset at what he considered
mismanagement by the condo board. He created three websites that he
used to criticize the board and Meadow Creek’s management firm. He
showed up at meetings, loudly and at times combatively stating his
views.
Eventually, the board got a restraining order that barred Pittel from
its meetings for two years. Meanwhile, he dueled in the courts with
several board members, with Pittel winding up on the losing side.
Earlier this month, with Pittel’s restraining order about to expire,
the condo board sought to extend it for another two years. Pittel
fought the board and this time got a strongly worded opinion in his
favor from Hennepin County District Court Referee Richard Trachy.
Pittel’s website postings, Trachy wrote, “were often unpleasant and
offensive to their targets, who quite reasonably felt unhappy about
what he said.”
offensive and upsetting speech is protected
But even offensive and upsetting speech is protected by the First Amendment, he wrote.
“Even before our Constitution was formed, men and women offended other
men and women, and efforts to quiet criticism often enlisted the power
of government to compel silence,” Trachy wrote. “Freedom of speech is
perhaps the foremost of our cherished freedoms. Hence its inclusion in
the First Amendment.”
Attorneys for Meadow Creek and representatives of its management firm declined to comment.
Now that the court has upheld Pittel’s freedom to criticize the condo board, his next step is to see if he can join it.
He was actually elected to the board a year ago, but couldn’t attend
meetings because of the restraining order. There’s some question about
whether he’s still a member or whether he was replaced along the way.
“They put me on [the board]. Why should I have to prove that I’m right?” Pittel said. “Let them prove that I’m wrong.”
Board President Enrique Torrano did not return calls for comment.
Reader's Comments
fonzi3
DEC. 28, 15
12:38 PM
FYI: Sharper Management (Eden Prairie) is the current property
management firm (that that the Strib failed to mention) at Meadow Creek
Condos in Hopkins.
supersmart1
DEC. 26, 15
5:09 PM
"Now that the court has upheld Pittel’s freedom to criticize the condo board..."
How can free speech rights ever be in doubt? It is simply amazing
that 224 years after the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution was adopted guaranteeing the right to free speech that it
is still being disputed.
FrankL
DEC. 26, 15
8:07 PM
@supersmart1 Yes he can have his websites for free speech, but I don't
see how he gets anything else. As a private organization, they
can set up any rules they feel like.
mchristi
DEC. 26, 15
11:57 PM
A private organization cannot expect the state to exceed its bounds in
enforcing their private rules, as they are asking with the restraining
order extension. Further, an organization like a condo association must
be bound by aprpriate law, not free from it. Frankly, they should not
be allowed to prevent owners from attending and speaking at association
meetings.
bobblumenfel
DEC. 26, 15
4:33 PM
"But even offensive and upsetting speech is protected by the First Amendment, he wrote."
Not "even" -- "especially". If the only speech allowed had to be
inoffensive and non-upsetting, it wouldn't be free speech.
mel001
DEC. 27, 15
12:28 PM
@bobblumenfel Thank you for understanding "Free Speech."
Sometimes it is difficult. I did make mistakes using a previous website
and it cost me. But the purpose of "calling out" the board on the
website is because of their lack of transparency and their failure to
answer questions about our use of our money. I have fought for
accountability on this for many years. Meadow Creek has a $ million
annual budget and we should know where that money goes and to
whom.
In answer to other comments I do enjoy travel and DO volunteer weekly
at a food shelf in Minnetonka. My sole purpose in life is not to just
pick on the board, but do expect them to be fair to owners. Those
involved in HOA's know how difficult it is for owners to get answers
from "controlling" boards.
I also want to mention there definitely appears to be some GOOD changes
coming to the board as only 3 of the "old timers" remain.
It is NOT about me - and it shouldn't be. But other owners asked me to fight for them and I have.
rocky27
DEC. 27, 15
9:49 AM
Oh it's highway robbery and outright left in some cases. I busted my
HOA hiring family nembers on a siding job that was supposed to go out
for bid. Then I requested copies of their yearly audit and saw that
$45G was spent yearly on pool maintenance. Right. At least $35G was
going into somebodies pocket. When I tried to organize people in my
neighborhood and sue, not a single lawyer would take my case.
Apparently HOA's are hard to beat in court and typically are well
lawyered up. Sadly, it's the little guys like us that don't fight back.
rrjjss
DEC. 26, 15
1:22 PM
What did this guy "win"? This guy has some real problems!!
top
contents
appendices
previous next