A resident of Ten Museum Park recently went to get his scooter that was parked on P1 and found it was hit and damaged and left to die without so much as a note.  After repeatedly asking management to review the surveillance tapes, he was told a “resident would be calling him”.  And, who would that resident be?  None other than Maiko Xavier, Board Member and Treasurer of Ten Museum Park Residential Association.  He denied knowledge of the incident but offered to pay for damages.

A request to review the surveillance tape was approved which turned out to be maybe a one TOPS TWO second tape which showed nothing but the exact moment the truck hit the scooter – not the full tape of the truck ramming the scooter up against a pole.  So, the Board was asked to provide a longer tape of the incident.  The Board was also asked to provide surveillance footage of Maiko removing the paint from the truck that hit the scooter from the scooter.  Huh?  yes, that’s right… yes, you heard me right!

Indeed, Vivian asked those requesting the footage to come to the office and made it very clear in her correspondence that the Board was not denying the request.  However, upon meeting with Vivian, she stated that while she could show the requested longer version of the tape of the truck hitting the scooter, she could not show the surveillance footage of  Maiko removing the paint because as Vivian Prendes, Manager at Ten Museum Park, stated with a straight face,  “The Board did not have the authority to show surveillance tapes of P1 because P1 is owned by the Master Association” Hmmm and uh, duh, what was the reasoning that allowed the video tape of the truck hitting the scooter in the first place, by the way?

Alas,  just more board games…

Or perhaps protecting a fellow board member?  Maiko claims he told the injured resident that he was going to remove the paint.  The resident denies that and was in a fury that Maiko would “have the arrogance to think he could touch someone else’s property like that…”

Maiko did write a long email detailing all that occurred in exacting detail once surveillance tapes were requested but rather strangely he did leave out anything about removing paint from the scooter.  When surveillance footage was requested of that incident, Vivian felt the need to question him on that (no;t sure that was even pertinent to the request!)  He then suddenly claimed that he removed the paint with the owner’s permission. Hmmm…. weird thing to leave that rather large detail out of a loooong email giving blow by blow details of the whole incident.   Really doesn’t make sense does it since the injured party had to take the scooter for repairs so why remove paint marks?  Well, you can decide for yourself, I guess….