In a recent email, I was accused by Mr. Brent Middleton of “gaslighting” regarding a number of issues, including my statements that the Board has not held proper quarterly meetings and that the Board has denied the members acceptable means of feedback. These characterizations don’t match reality, however, and the mismatch affects you as a lot owner, as it jeopardizes the decision-making process and thus could have serious consequences on the value of your investment. It’s also not a great way to run an organization.
Quarterly Meetings: The board member’s email stated:
“the board HAS conducted ALL required quarterly meetings and has had MORE ATTENDANCE and PARTICIPATION than any other board due to the Zoom meeting option.”
Well, unfortunately, it’s just not so. Has this board held meetings with the membership? Yes, in their own controlled and restrictive way. Has this board held quarterly meetings? Absolutely not.
Quarterly meetings are for membership participation, which most importantly includes the ability of members to vote on business that requires membership votes (like approving contracts with attorneys). Quarterly meetings also allow the general membership to make motions for topics to be discussed and voted on. Over the past year, the Board has held no such meetings – not once.
Every meeting held by the Board this year has either been a formal board meeting, or a “special” member meeting, meaning that the Board has specifically disallowed motions, votes, or open discussion periods. For the most part, communication has been one-way (more on that later).
Participation: Brent said:
“We ALWAYS allow comments and questions, in fact WE ALLOWED YOU, STEVE, 20-30 MINUTES ON A ZOOM CALL IN SPITE OF A 3 MINUTE COMMENT LIMIT! So when you come off with “they are not transparent and censoring us” you are far from being truthful.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. First, the comment periods are indeed limited. One exception was cited above, namely the meeting on 14 May in which I was “allowed” (to use their words) 20-30 minutes in a back-and-forth discussion regarding the dissolution vote this board had scheduled for a mere 8 days hence. The board actually began the meeting asking me to speak in this manner (interestingly with no prior notice), but this was because I was representing a large group of lot owners who had previously participated in two of our Town Hall meetings to discuss the same topic. In other words, the Board specifically stated that they were suspending their 3-minute limit specifically for that one exception. No other members were afforded this opportunity, and this was a one-time opportunity. Brent is aware of this.
Now that we’ve established that there was the single exception above for comments, let’s talk about what is normal. Normally, the meetings only have a Q&A period at the end complete with microphone muting on the participants using Zoom. In other words, we are now running our meetings for an HOA with only 99 lots like it was a city of some magnitude. Meetings typically have fewer than 40 actual people participating (even with Zoom), so we’re saying that this small number of people needs to be regulated to timed Q&A periods. In most cases, each participant is given only one time slot, and there is no back-and-forth. The format is fine if you agree with the Board, but it is wholly inadequate if you need to question their decisions or logic.
The process is exacerbated by the fact that the Board makes all decisions prior to any input from the membership. You might say that the Q&A is more about the politics of coping than it is about community participation in decisions.
In general on meetings and gathering in person, Brent said:
“ ‘If this board had allowed good communication with the members prior to any decision’ EXACTLY why we have Zoom meetings so EVERYONE can participate instead of being bullied at physical meetings. Maybe not everyone knows that we have had to request POLICE PRESENCE at past meetings because of threats/out of control members? (see Karen Davisson video), Jeff Johnston Yelling out at meetings, Teresa Benton yelling ‘[expletive deleted]’ at my wife during a meeting, on and on. MANY members have expressed their unwillingness to attend meetings because of this.”
There’s a lot to unpack here. Let’s start with saying they have Zoom meetings so everyone can participate. No problem there. It’s entirely possible to have in-person meetings and Zoom at the same time. That’s a red herring.
As for the request of police presence, I only know of the case this year where the sheriff’s deputy was present at the 22 May dissolution vote meeting. I am aware, however, that the deputy came at the request of a general member (not the board) and she was invited simply to help ensure that the meeting happened in a civil manner and that people were allowed to get in freely. You are welcome to correct me with any specifics of where you needed police protection. However, simply stating that someone went on a tirade or shouted in a meeting is not sufficient to state that we are somehow incapable of meeting. It’s also inappropriate that you claim that the shouts only come from those who oppose the Board. Board members themselves have conducted themselves similarly. Somehow we’re going to need to learn to get along. I recommend that we start by actually seeing each other.
Conclusion: Our current board has recently tried to perform the most extreme action – to dissolve our HOA and replace it with something they refuse to state. We don’t know what they will propose now that that failed. Our ability to hold open discussions and proper votes will be key to working our path ahead. You should not surrender your representation.
Leave a Reply