Sabotage of January 5, 2021 election regarding sale of Tropicana….

Editorial   Tropicana Forum–an independent news and information internet publication.  December 30. 2020.


Today, 6 days before the Murex vote,  an email to shareholders appears with an “unsolicited offer letter of intent” to buy the park from a company called MHM.  The letter begins by thanking our board  for “the opportunity” to distribute the letter to shareholders.

The MHM letter sent via email by our board was prefaced by a “Dear Shareholders” introduction signed not by our Co-op president, but by an employee— Clarice Campbell who suggests that shareholders might want to change their votes including a mechanism to reverse a proxy that was already submitted.  Her note references “we” but who exactly are “we?”

Doesn’t it strike you as strange that this letter shows up “out of the blue” at this late point in time?  Why does our board feel that they have an obligation to let an unproven and unprocessed  stranger suddenly gain access and throw a major monkey wrench into our election procedures?  The vote is now compromised.

We have known that there are other companies out there who might want to take a shot at making an offer for the Park,  but we did not want to start a chaotic bidding war, so we agreed to act on Murex first, with a February deadline in 2021.  We have understood that to defeat Murex on Jan 5 would likely cause us to subsequently look elsewhere for buyers, but only after a possible Jan. 5 defeat.  The Co-op voted to continue with this schedule.  No one voted to seek out new offers now.  That letter should not have been sent out to our shareholders.

It seems certain that someone put MHM up to these shenanigans. Where was MHM during the entire one year process?   And who among us are the enablers who made this fiasco happen today?  Let them step forward and sign this  letter.

Our lawyer didn’t want any part of this, so our board allowed this outrageous incursion to occur without another legal opinion at least.    We have a procedure and a guarantee by Murex that their promises will be kept and rolled into a contract if we pass the vote.

Distributing this letter strikes us as unethical on the part of this “buyer” and on the part of our board which has just allowed an interloper to bring an unsolicited offer to take center stage.

Our board has acted in a outrageous manner to potentially compromise the fiscal lives of our shareholders who deserve a fair and unbiased  procedure, as our investments are in the hands of the Co-op board, and, as with any corporation who looks afters shareholders investments, they have a fiduciary obligation to act responsibly and professionally, showing good faith and trust.

Now the well has been poisoned and the election compromised.

As for now, the board should decide to permanently ban MHM from any further dealings with the Co-op. An emergency meeting will be required, and the entire board should be dismissed.

Why isn’t our lawyer speaking to the shareholders on this matter?    Has he no responsibility for this mess?



From the editors at


December 31, 2020.   2:15 pm.  We have learned that the Co-Op board today asked Brian Chase, the Co-op lawyer, to respond to comments made on Facebook and in our editorial opinion piece (12/30/20)  on 

You should know that in less than 24 hours, our TropicanaForum post received 541 “hits.”  So it is clear that many people are interested in this situation.

All shareholders will receive Chase’s letter, dated today, and they can all judge the content for themselves.

If anyone wants to write a comment to post here, you can click the “Comments” button at the bottom right, and please include your real name.



10 thoughts on “Sabotage of January 5, 2021 election regarding sale of Tropicana….

  1. I think that in the interest of full disclosure that you demand of the Co-Op Board, you also should disclose who you are so that we can be sure you are a member of the Tropicana Park.

  2. Why don’t we start by your revealing who you are. Our rules require that all commenters identify themselves. Also, since when does one need to identify themselves as “a member of the Tropicana Park” to be able to enjoy our first amendment right of free speech?

    Did you ever write a letter to an editorial opinion writer at a reputable newspaper such as the New York Times and demand that the writer identify himself? Of course you didn’t, so why start with us?

  3. In our Times Union in Albany, NY and also the Schenectady Gazette it will not be published unless it is signed. If you want to write a letter you want published you should sign it.

  4. First off Blogfinger, The New York Times is no longer considered a reputable newspaper as only 21% of the American people believe it to be a credible source of news and information, but that’s not at issue here.

    The issue is honesty and utter transparency. Knowingly withholding information to sway a vote is in itself election fraud. You want the shareholders to know more information or less information to decide their vote?

    I personally think what the board did was not only ethical, but their obligation to each shareholder. We never placed the park for sale so any offer including the Murex deal, came out of the blue.

    A “chaotic bidding war” as you call it, is exactly what we should want as shareholders. If we are going to sell the park, why not entertain all the offers to get the best deal out there.

    The well has not been poisoned as you claim and the election should proceed as planned. Banning offers as you want is completely short sighted. If this is a mess like you claim, it’s the kinda mess most sellers of a commodity would like to have.

  5. I let a few items get through anonymously to let folks understand that we will enforce our policy to insist on real names. We will adhere to that starting now. Paul

  6. Dr K. You want an open field to allow any potential buyer to jump in as just occurred, but we had voted to just deal only with the Murex negotiation, so it seems dishonest not to continue with that exclusive arrangement.

    I would also like more money, but our word is also worth something. If Murex is voted down on Jan 5, they can still come back with another offer, and they should be able to continue raising their offer until their time is up in February.

    Then, would you open the gates to any and all suitors, and how would that work? —-Paul

  7. Respectfully A quick question: Does Murex know of the potential offer by MHM which potentially could be a way to disrupt the voting set for next week?

    Ethically, since the timing of MHM’s letter of intent appears suspicious, we believe Murex should be aware that another company as submitted a letter of intent. This may motivate Murex to raise their offer. Murex may want to renegotiate their offer which would mean the vote next week may have to be delayed.

  8. Blogfinger, in my blog, I was only trying to stress the boards decision to provide us with more information as a good thing. In your first blog, you were upset about that, and was taking it out on the board because they disseminated that information. All I’m interested in is all available information be provided to the the shareholders so we can make an informed decision.

    Our word is still worth something. We can still vote on their new proposed package, as I stated, with the understanding that other offers are out there. When did Murex get to be the only buyer out there? We didn’t put the park for sale on the market so at this point, I would expect all these unsolicited buyers would increase, once the word got out we were entertaining selling. Nothing nefareous there.

    Murex already stated that their last offer was the best they can do. Are they really negotiating in good faith knowing we can’t or won’t negotiate with another management company. Tropicana is still solvent and under no pressure to sell quickly. Right? Just questions.

    My opinion, we do open it up to all “suitors” and let the board and our attorney deal with the negotiations and transaction.

  9. Steve: Thank you for increasing the level of discussion on this topic. My editorial of Dec 30 resulted in a flurry of emails on Dec 30 and 31 from three Co-Op officials winding up in the lap of Co-Op lawyer Brian Chase on Dec 31.

    The whole story about my editorial is told today as a post on the evening of Jan 1, 2021


Comments are closed.