Who Is Really Undermining Fairness and Democracy?

In a recent email to Kevin Pace regarding a series of questions he presented to the Board, the Board responded that they were:

“the only board to tackle the serious issues created by prior boards over the last 25 years, including violations of IRS regulations and illegal voting prcuedures that undermined fairness and democracy.”

Unfortunately, there are so many wrong things about this board that it’s hard to know where to begin, but I want to focus on this topic for a moment because it illustrates how they run things.  Like many autocracies, they insist that they (and only they) are the guardians of democracy while their actions completely belie their words.  Perhaps we could tolerate an autocracy if it were competent — but this one is also incapable of setting a consistent course or even performing the most basic duties.

Let’s talk about this Board’s version of democracy.

Since taking office, this board:

– Removed 30 years of governance in January, stating that all changes to governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, covenants, Bylaws) were void.  Their justification was that they were enacted by “illegal” voting procedures (the so-called “automatic yes” votes that were repealed in 2016).  However, they could produce no case law, legal judgments, etc., to justify their claim.  When challenged as to whether they needed to now have a vote using proper methods (2/3 written vote majority), they balked and passed the change as a simple board action!  No membership votes were used to reverse 30 years!  (The Board’s action is what’s really illegal — in spite of what they say!  You deserve a vote!)

– In the same board meeting, they declared that all dues increases, leveling, etc. were also void for the same reason.  Again, no membership votes — just a board decision.  Once again, they used the word “illegal” to describe any actions they didn’t like and used that as justification.

– On 12 May, the Board was challenged with a consequence of their actions.  By reversing all governance to 1995 as they stated in January, meant that two members of the board (Vice President Jerry Powers and Secretary Brent Middleton) had terms that already expired, and the President and Treasurer would be up for election this October.  The Board (Jerry) refused to respond on the spot.  When confronted on the same issue in the 22 May dissolution vote meeting, Jerry said that they had changed their determination on governance.  At that point, they stated that the rollback in governance only applied to dues, and not to other issues.  Thus the board would continue unchanged (and they would remain secure in their offices).  So — without a membership vote — the Board just changed the rules to fit its objectives.  No democracy.  This is simply the rule of Jerry.

– The Board is supposed to have quarterly membership meetings that allow for the membership to debate freely and to make motions that can be voted on.  This board refused to have any such meetings.  It allows no votes other than board votes (where they decide everything themselves), and the one special meeting  to attempt dissolution.  They only held that meeting in the manner that they did because their attorney insisted that this was an absolute necessity to attempt to get what they wanted.  The Board has deprived completely the membership of its rights to make motions and vote, yet the Board claims to represent “democracy”.

– The Board refuses to dialog with any members that are opposed to its agenda.  They have stated in email that this is because of pending lawsuits that prohibit discussion, but this rings hollow because the Board openly dialogs and socializes with the plaintiffs on one lawsuit (the suit for dissolution), while refusing to dialog with those who are not even on lawsuits, but simply oppose their plan to dissolve the HOA and the Board’s desire to give the roads to an undisclosed recipient.

– For those who read the text of the dissolution documents that the Board proposed in their failed attept to dissolve the Association, they saw the autocratic view of the Board.  If the resolution had passed, the Board would have been given “absolute discretion”, “without further action by the members”, “pay and authorize payment”, “collection, sale, exchange or other disposition of the Corporations property and assets”.  In other words, you would have given complete authority to the Board over your property.  This might have been less extreme if the Board had said what it was planning to do with your property — but it refused to be transparent, and it continues to refuse transparency!

The claim that this board represents any kind of democratic process rings completely hollow!