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
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
"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
@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
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
"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
@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
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
What did this guy "win"? This guy has some real problems!!


top  contents  appendix   previous   next