Home
Blog
Cookout Info

Login/Register

Friends of Sandia Airpark
(an informal website for
for friendly planning &
discussion)

Author: Steve Suddarth

  • Review of 40 Pages Submitted by Mr. Powers to Town Commission

    Summary of 40 pages of documents submitted by Mr. Powers and entered into the Edgewood town council records 6-10-2025

    During the town commission meeting, Mr. Powers presented these documents, and seemed to imply that they supported his claim that the Airpark roads have belonged to the Town of Edgewood for some time.  We can find nothing of the sort in these documents.  The requirements for maintenance by the HOA are addressed (work our current board refuses to perform), and there are statements about the intended paving.  The plat contains statements about public access (use — not ownership!)

    In short, there is nothing in these documents that supports the assertion of Mr. Powers and his associates.  If anything, these documents confirm that the SAEPOA, the airpark HOA, is the rightful owner of the roads.

    Mr. Powers exhibits can be seen here:

     https://kloudcraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Exhibits_Submitted_by_JP_20250611152524169.pdf

    Here is a summary done by Dr. John Lorenz and me:

    Pages 1-2: Berg et al. Lawsuit (note, duplicated on pages 34-35)  This is the cover page only.  It does not explain the background or purpose of the lawsuit, namely to get “quiet title” from a judge to put to bed arguments from Mr. Powers and his associates to remove title of the roads from SAEPOA.  Also, the fact that 18 plaintiffs are listed does not jibe with the board’s position that their opponents are a “very small minority”.  Furthermore, other members (not on the lawsuit) agree with them.  Since filing, others have subsequently joined and these are the people on the lawsuit only, not the sum of those who oppose the board’s attempt to abandon ownership of the roads.

    Pages 3-14: Santa Fe County Commissioners minutes of 1-12-1987      

                Page 13 (page 10 of minutes): notes “unfulfilled requirements of Phases II and III of “Airpark Estates Subdivision”, but indicates there are plans to do so: Walt White is putting up $13,000 for improvement of Dinkle Road, hoping for “state cooperation.”  It’s unclear what this document has to do with Mr. Powers’ argument that the roads belong to someone other than SAEPOA.

    Page 15: Santa Fe County Agenda of 11-15-1985

                Item 12b, page 15, “request for final plat approval for Phase 1 Unit 1 of Sandia Airpark subdivision.”  Annotated by hand as “Approved.”

    Pages 16-18: Santa Fe County Memorandum of 11-14-1985

                Request for final plat approval for Phase I Unit I of Sandia Airpark Subdivision.  “Conditional approval was granted.”

    Page 16: “Access to the subdivision will be provided from Dinkle Rd via either Rainbow or Jones roads” [no mention of ownership]

    Page 17: uses the phrase “all proposed roadway easements”.  [What does “easement” imply?]  Roads will be 6-inches of gravel, HOA “will be responsible for maintenance and repair”.  “The developer agrees to contribute towards the improvement of Dinkle Rd.”  [We do not know whether this occurred — it’s been 40 years!  In any event, this states that the developer is responsible, not the HOA.]  One of the “conditions” for approval is that Phases II and III must be reviewed by the CDRC before approval.

    Pages 19-28: [Illegible title, County Development Review Committee per last page?]

    Addresses utilities, environmental impacts etc.

    Page 22: Roads will be 6 inches of gravel, “the roads within the subdivision are not accepted for maintenance by Santa Fe County, all maintenance and repair will be the responsibility of the HOA”

    Pages 25-28: plats

    Pages 12-32: Town Ordinance 1999-V, 11-3-1999

    Annexation of 160 acres of Sandia Airpark.  What this means is that the Airpark fell within the jurisdiction of the Town.  It says nothing about ownership of the private roads held by the Airpark.

    Page 33: Hetznecker letter 10-18-99 to Edgewood town clerk in support of annexation.

    Pages 34-35: Berg et al Lawsuit (duplication)

    Pages 36-38: Edgewood town council meeting [minutes?] 11-3-1999

    Discussion of request for annexation by HOA, voted unanimously to annex, again, without any discussion of road ownership.

    Pages 39-40: Opinion C.C. McColloch, A.G. [of what?] “January 24, 1945 “[date a typo?]

    Discusses abandoned segment of highway and opines that “title reverted to abutting owners in fee without limitations.”  It’s completely unclear what this document has to do with ownership of SAEPOA roads.

  • What Your Board Thinks About You and Why They Should Resign

    On 10 June 2025, our board president and vice president spoke at a meeting of the Edgewood Town Commission.  Although they don’t speak this way in meetings of the Airpark, they perhaps felt safer at a meeting outside the Airpark, and freely shared their opinions of those neighbors who disagree with them.

    “obnoxious”

    “bully”

    “They’re drying your brain out”

    “do whatever they can to raise hell”

    “those kind of people don’t go away”

    “it’s just harassment”

    “a very small minority” (over 40 percent of the vote?)

    “one of them is even a retired bureaucrat from California!” (is this a crime?)

    Keep in  mind, that this is how your board represents you and your neighbors to the town commission.

    In the meantime, this board refuses to do any productive work or pay any bills by its own admission.

    It has now been over 3 weeks since their failed attempt to get the Association to vote to dissolve.  At that meeting they said that they would develop plans to resolve what they consider to be the problems facing the association, but they have had no further communication with the membership about this.  During the same vote meeting, they also promised to make the Board’s proxies available for inspection within a “few days”.

    This board has time to denigrate the neighbors in a public town meeting, but no time nor interest to serve the membership.  The board should resign.  It’s not SAEPOA that needs dissolution, rather it’s this board that needs to dissolve and allow the Airpark to be governed by people who will do the job and build up the neighborhood.

  • About Michael’s Latest Ad Hominem

    I don’t always respond to the ad hominem attacks that are directed at me, or those toward others who are engaged in trying to save the airpark association.  However, from time to time, we get an email or other statement that merits a reply.  This is one of those times.  Michael Ponto, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit against SAEPOA seeking dissolution, just sent everyone an email that is a reply to our open invitation to the Board to start dialog, an email which also questioned the Board’s attacks on those who have opposed dissolution.  Here is my reply to key items.

    Mike says, “You are no different from any other lot owner” — Indeed!  No more, and also no less!  We all have a voice, and we ought to use it!

    Mike says, “You present your opinions as if they are the only way forward–dismissing anything that doesn’t align with your agenda” — This is very strange, as I didn’t even know that I had an “agenda” beyond preserving the Association, at least until we have studied the problems as a membership (not just the board), and we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives, and most importantly, plotted the course ahead.  Such study must be done prior to any move to dissolve.

    Mike says, “If SAEPOA is going to recover, it will take professionals” — What do you mean?  The Board?  How are they more “professional” than “any other lot owner” besides currently holding an elected office in the organization.  Also, aren’t these the same people who just tried to kill SAEPOA? Hardly a good choice to “recover”.  Are you referring to the Board’s attorney?  (Atty. McDonald?)  If so, that’s an even stranger choice.  If that’s the case, you are suggesting that we need professional advice from the counsel who is opposing you on your lawsuit!  Very strange.

    Mike says, “You claimed that I sat in on a closed session of the board.  Prove it or apologize…” — You’ll recall that I have addressed this before.  I pointed out that you have the appearance of having done so.  I’m glad that you state that you were not there, but the appearance is clear.  To really clear this up should involve the Board or (much better) the attorney clearing it up.  Why?  The concept is called “trust, but verify”.  We know that you (Michael) and other plaintiffs on the lawsuit regularly interact and socialize with the Board, and we believe that we have a right to know that there is a proper separation between the interests of those who seek to dissolve the association (whatever their reasons) and the Association, which should be defended by its board.  My caveats in my statements were clear.  The appearance of your actions (as well as those of the Board and the attorney) was clear.  I won’t apologize for what I did not do.  You can take or leave that point.

    Mike says, “… your examples of bullying and misinformation.  I have over 200 emails full of both” — That’s news to me.  I’m sure I did not send 200 emails on this subject.  That would be more than 2 per day.  That also assumes that the emails contain “bullying and misinformation”, which they don’t.

    Mike says, “you post lies, insults and baseless accusations” — Please be specific.

    Mike says, “your group bombards the board with document requests … harassment” — To my knowledge, documents requested were simply those already promised or obligated by the board (minutes, member lists, proxies, etc.).

    Mike says, “You insist on seeing counted proxies” — Indeed!  Again, it’s called trust, but verify!  The pro-dissolution side (the Board) got to examine all of our proxies in advance.  We should get to see theirs as well.  They promised them “within days”.  Why has the Board not provided them?

    You say, “we both know the judge ignored it [the TRO filing]” — That statement is simply not true.  The TRO case never even heard the case, it was dropped because it was overcome by events.

    You say, “you want committees” — What else?  Wait for the Board to work again in secret?  If their ideas are good, why not present them in the open?

    You say, “you expect people to sit down with you?” — Yes!  That’s how we solve things.

    You claim regarding the committees I chaired in 2015 that I “pushed others out until I was the only dissenting voice” — This is a very, very strange memory on your part, as I pushed NO ONE out of any committee.  No one was ever asked nor pressured to leave — not one time!  As for dissent, I find your memory strange, because those bylaws proposals were involved much discussion from all sides, and you participated so as to consistently have two balanced viewpoints for each position.  This was done to maximize the members’ ability to choose between alternatives.  In other words, dissent was baked in to the results, and you had plenty of opportunity to put your opinions in.  The most vocal and active participant in the process, by far, was our current board president, Richard Baker.  If the process was so heavy-handed by me, then why did you, Richard, and the other participants allow the results to be put forward for votes?

    You say, “the current board is more than capable of producing fair and impartial documents” — then…why are you suing them?

    By the way, 38 out of 99 is not a “small minority”, nor is 52 a very large majority.  Besides, the standard is 2/3 — 66 votes!

  • Email to the SAEPOA Board – Invitation to Dialog

    On 27 May 2025, I sent an open email to the board as well as the membership at large describing questions we should address if the Board is serious about trying to resolve a way ahead.  We have not heard back from them yet, but are hopeful that they will accept our invitation to a dinner to start discussion.

    Here is the content of that email:

    In the meeting last Thursday, we had the vote on dissolution, which failed to pass in spite of the many measures the Board took to slant the vote in their favor.  Many of us would say that this was something to be thankful about.  Is this because we simply want to keep SAEPOA in its current form?  No.  I believe there is a shared view that the airpark should be better than it has been in the past, and certainly better than it is right now under the current leadership.

     

    Until now, our board has indicated that it has only one purpose in mind, dissolution of the Association, to be followed by their management of our assets without any checks on their authority.  If they have a plan for what they would do with our assets after dissolution, they have not divulged it.  For this reason, there is a sizable minority that is strongly against dissolution, certainly enough to block a dissolution vote.  For a way ahead, the Board simply must work with those it disagrees with.

     

    What would be a meaningful path ahead?  Let me suggest that the questions that should have been addressed prior to the vote be addressed now.  The Board can certainly help if it seeks now to work toward a better future.  For example, committees should be formed with balanced viewpoints to make recommendations about the following, and not just with one side of the opinions:

     

    • What is the desired end state to manage common property?  (e.g., Who do we want to ultimately own the roads? How are they maintained? Who pays runway access fees? How do we raise the funds?)
    • What is a legal path from our current state to the desired end state?
      • If keeping SAEPOA, what amendments should be made to covenants and bylaws, and how?
      • If we decide to dissolve SAEPOA, we must first (1) decide what exactly replaces it, and (2) ensure a method to transition to the new state through a legal and sure process.
    • What is our collective interest in community activity and charity?  To wit, do we have a legal (and agreed upon) definition for charity?
    • What is a sufficient answer to the question of our 501(c)(3) status and how do we get to that answer? (e.g., do we contact the IRS as an organization?  What risks will we take—no matter whether we dissolve or not?)
    • How do we “fight fair” (such as following rules, allowing better dialogue, etc.)?

     

    In the coming days, I will put out a blog post about each of these topics.  The first is here: https://kloudcraft.com/blog/2025/05/27/what-happens-to-the-roads/.

     

    There are many more questions, but I believe these are the big ones.

    I want to make an invitation to the Board.  Deborah and I would like to invite the Board to a nice dinner to establish a way that a dialog can take place that then subsequently involves the greater airpark community.  Just let me know the dates/times that work best and we’ll adjust as well as we can.  The ball is in the Board’s court.  All they have to do is accept the invitation.

     

    Steve

  • What Happens to the Roads?

    Our most important asset in SAEPOA is our common property, namely the roads we depend upon.  Since our neighborhood is an airpark, we depend on them for more than just getting to and from our properties by car, rather the roads are also taxiways.

    Last Thursday, SAEPOA held a vote on dissolution of the association, and yet we have no resolution as to what would have happened to the roads if the motion to dissolve had passed.  This should be distressing as dissolution would have created great risk to the neighborhood.

    Here are some issues with the roads:

    • The roads need routine maintenance, this includes patching holes, cracks and soft spots.  We also need occasional sweeping to reduce gravel and thus control propeller erosion on aircraft.  No maintenance has been performed for a long time and the state of the roads, although suitable for cars, is not good for aircraft right now.  Our current board refuses all productive work, unless done by “volunteers”, and thus routine maintenance is not addressed.  If we dissolve, we should not expect the routine maintenance to be done by anyone.
    •  At some point, the roads will need repaving.  There is controversy among the members as to how badly this is needed and how soon it must happen.  Everyone will reasonably agree, however, that the roads will eventually require new pavement.  We should expect that the roads will only be paved by an owner of them.  Dissolution as proposed by the board was going to leave the roads in limbo, and you would have no knowledge of who might repave them — or if it could ever happen.
    • The roads are taxiways.  Should the roads transfer to town, county, or state ownership, the right to taxi could be revoked at will and this would effectively destroy the airpark.  The board claims that our right to taxi would be covered as we are “grandfathered” in, but this is a high risk.  Even in Albuquerque, local businesses were forced to close when a local airport, Coronado, was closed improperly by the Sandia Tribe who had secrety purchased the land and then used a public works argument.  Similarly, a government could use the fact that airplanes are not generally permitted on public roads to end our right to taxi.  There is a reason we collectively own our roads.
    The roads at all times will belong to “somebody”, the Board has never made it clear who this somebody will be.  Our Board vice president has stated that “somebody” is, or will be, the town of Edgewood.  At one time, he stated that the town was eager to repave these roads for free, although he has never produced documentation to that effect.  When a group of lot owners has sought clarity from a judge in a suit to establish “quiet title” (e.g., determine the ownership of the roads), the Board responded with a countersuit for damages against those homeowners.  Thus our current board is effectively saying that they will hurt our neighbors if they try to estalish that the roads belong to SAEPOA (which they clearly do).  …and you pay for the Association’s lawyer without being granted the proper right to vote on it!

    It’s important to realize that, if the association is dissolved, the current board will get to decide who they belong to.  They could be transferred to a government or to any nonprofit (perhaps one in which the board is involved — but not you?).  It appears increasingly unlikely that the town would accept the roads.  Could our roads be “merged” into some entity that would then force our homeowners to pay for pavement elsewhere?  Where is this going?  Our board won’t say.

    My belief is that this board must state the end goal for the roads.  It’s entirely possible that we could agree on the desired end state.  Based on that condition, we could decide whether the Association is the best path ahead or if something new needs to happen.

    One thing is for sure, however.  Many of us will not approve of a plan to let go of the roads with no idea of where they are going.

  • Who Really Takes Over If SAEPOA Dissolves?

    In the “Voting Materials” email that the SAEPOA Board sent to you, they included a document called “Voter Information.pdf”, which included the plan for dissolution that they want you, the member, to approve.  In it, they carefully highlighted in yellow all of the portions they wanted to draw your attention to — namely that they would give “back” some dues that they, in their opnion, feel that you are owed.  Thus, you could expect that, if you allow dissolution, that you might get some money back.  (Payment for your vote?)

    What the Board omitted was the draw your attention to the really important parts.  I have highlighted those in orange.

    What you will see is that our board intends to give itselve absolute power over all SAEPOA assets, which includes the money, and most importantly the real property such as roads.

    Voting to dissolve will not remove this board and its potentially abusive actions.  All it will do us remove your voice in the matter, and they will be able to do just about anything they want. 

  • Those Ridiculous Letters – Vote NO on Dissolution

    By now, you probably recieved two letters, one from the SAEPOA Board, and another from Mr. Ponto, the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit against SAEPOA to dissolve it.  Curiously (or perhaps not curiously), both letters are telling you to do the same thing — to vote in favor of dissolving our HOA.  Also, it is striking that they use the same talking points and very similar language, almost as if they were coordinated.  In the case of Deborah and me, we got the letters on the same day, this Monday.

    Their arguments are paper thin.  Since the contents are so similar, we can simply look at the Board’s letter:

    • They say: “After exhaustive analysis and the best legal advice, it’s time to dissolve SAEPOA”.  In fact, they have not analyzed any options other than dissolution.  The “best legal advice” is the attorney retained by SAEPOA without the membership consent (in violation of bylaws) and who only reports to the board vice president.  This same vice president has pushed for dissolution for years and has not been open to alternatives.
    • They say: “The HOA has failed its core duties”.  While it may be true that the HOA could do better, and it even may be true that prior boards could have done better, no board has been worse than this one.  This board has now openly stated that it will not perform any HOA duties (such as maintain roads, pay debts owed, or even support the charities it insists we are bound to support).
    • They say “former board members sued the town” [to prevent the town from paving Rainbow Road for free].  This is misleading at best.  My understanding is second-hand, but I believe the sources to be reliable.  First, the town never finalized any agreement or plans to repave our portion of Rainbow Road, although it was discussed and Jerry Powers pushed for this when he was on the town commission.  Second, the lawsuit by the “Berg” plaintiffs seeks no damages as I understand it.  The lawsuit is merely for “quiet title” to settle who owns the roads.  The plaintiffs believe that the roads belong to us.  The board believes that “someone” owns the roads, and they claim that this should be the town, even though, as I understand it, the town has not indicated that it owns or even wants to own the roads.  I understand that our board responded by countersuing the plaintiffs.
    • They say: “The HOA’s foundation is broken. Governing documents are contradictory”.  Despite what they say, they can go no further than their own opinion.  Neither the Board nor its attorney have presented any statutory law, case law, or judgments that indicate that any of our governing documents were in violation of state law at any time.
    • They say: “legal, tax and finacial threats”, referring to the supposed IRS 501(c)(3) problem.  Yet this board has refused to contact the IRS to even find out if we have a problem.  This is so even after they voted for a board authorization to contact the IRS! (1/27/2025)  It was never done!  They now claim that because their (supposedly “our”) attorney has an education in tax law that that qualifies him as a tax attorney and therefore they “know” the level of difficulty we find ourselves in, despite other information to the contrary.  It’s important to note that skilled tax attorneys hold themselves out (advertise) as having that expertise.  The Board’s attorney, however, holds himself out as an expert in intellectual property and nonprofit law.  Notably he does not hold himself out as a tax attorney.
    • The Board talks up its “volunteers”.  We keep noticing that the cracks and gravel are increasingly problematic.  How much worse will it get once the Board/Working Group gets its way?
    • Finally, the letter claims that we need to dissolve in order to “restore peace, trust, and true community”.  This will be difficult after running a rigged process in which the Board has not held any open in-person meetings, held no member votes until this one, restricted feedback, has never had face-to-face contact with the membership, and which responds to members with the hostility that we have regularly seen.  Do you really think that giving in to this Board will result in any improvement in relationships?  I’m skeptical that the same group (Working Group/board) that has distributed defamatory videos to win elections, and whose leader is or was involved in over 20 lawsuits (!) will restore “peace, trust, and true harmony” if you give in to their demands.

    Keep in mind that if the Association is dissolved, this Board will almost certainly take on the role of an executor to determine what happens with SAEPOA’s assets.  In addition to the money in the accounts, this will give the current SAEPOA authority over what happens to your roads.  It will also leave you open to the same people trying to force organization (whether desired or undesired) by this neighborhood, and you will have a very limited voice in the process.  This is if you’re lucky!  Most likely, you will find that the same individuals that are forcing this dissolution vote will push their will on you and you will have no representation and no recourse.

    Vote NO to dissolution!

    This board must resign!

  • Town Hall – Wednesday – 21 May – 6pm – Suddarth Hangar, 40 Blanco

    Please come to a FAIR and OPEN discussion of the SAEPOA Board’s intended vote to dissolve the Association.  Also, we will talk about voting procedures (as we expect them).  We hope that any board members will come to see their neighbors face-to-face outside the official meeting where they plan the vote.  This would present an opportunity to describe and discuss the mechanics in advance.

    When: Wednesday, 21 May 2025, 6pm.
    Where: 40 Blanco Drive, Edgewood NM 87015

    or Zoom 

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8865752621?pwd=Z4Y0Jxwy5nXLYg37vZApbCX3i76k2c.1&omn=82822845311

    (Meeting ID: 886 575 2621, Passcode: SAEPOA)
    (we will provide snacks and drinks)

    Our draft agenda for the meeting includes:

    1. Any open discussion for or against dissolution (Board members are invited and encouraged to meet their neighbors face to face!)

    2. Assistance with any last-minute proxies.

    3. Discussion of expected voting processes (the next evening!) — and how to ensure that peoples’ votes are are properly counted.

    4., Any other open discussion.

  • A Great Time! Young Eagles!

    This past Saturday morning, we had a great treat with the chance to host Young Eagles!!

    John Lorenz, Mark Campbell, and Russ Gritzko of the local EAA did a fantastic job organizing the event, which we held on the field out of Russ’ hangar on the commercial side.  At least 8 Young Eagles flew, and a few “extra-credit” rides took place as well.  In addition to their rides, the particpants got a certificate and a logbook with an initial entry for the orientation flight.

    Mostly, everybody had a great time, which includes the volunteer pilots, the EAA volunteers who managed the ground activity, our family members who participated, the Young Eagles themselves, and their families!

    Let me share some of my fun.  The first of the two boys I took up was Michael.  Michael was 9 years old and he had never been in an airplane before.  Frankly, Michael was amazed.  Because we flew in the AirCam, I could fly just over 500 feet over the ground.  We flew over Cedar Crest and then around the mountains to our north, at times, just over the tree tops and we rounded over the top of South Mountain.  The whole time, Michael was full of questions about how high we were, whether we were going fast.  His favorite subject in school is math.  It was just a  joy to spend about 20 minutes in the air with Michael.

    You can read more about the event at the local EAA website: https://eaa1306.org/2025/05/18/a-very-successful-young-eagles-event/

    Here are some pictures that Deborah and I took.

     

  • Let’s Be Consistent — Two of Our Board Positions Need to Vacate Immediately

    In last night’s information meeting, we discussed many things in our first (and very welcome) open discussion with this board.  One topic that came up consistently was the insistence by the Board that our prior voting was, in their minds “illegal”, and that they were compelled to roll back our governance to 1995 (although 1993 would have been more appropriate).  This “roll back” was the basis for arguing that “excess” dues needed to be refunded.

    On 27 January, the Board unilaterally decided that because of our prior policy of counting non-returned ballots as “yes” (from 1993 to 2017), that all of our governance (covenants/bylaws) were to be deemed “illegal” and we would roll back our governing documents to 1995.  The Board was challenged by members during the comment period that the Bylaws require a 2/3 member vote for such changes — a concern dismissed by the Board.  They were also questioned as to why we were not rolling back to 1993, instead of 1995, since 1995 also included votes that the board considered “illegal” — no answer was given.  The Board also stated a major consequence — namely that all dues increases from 1995 on were “illegal”, and therefore had to be refunded.   According the board, we would now likely be cash-strapped and needed to consider dissolution (among other reasons they have argued).  How the refunds would work (who gets how much money) remains unclear to this day.  We, the members, were told that the Board’s decision was final and that our voting rights were irrelevant since their opinion as to illegality of the prior “yes votes” settled the issue.

    Please note the following:  The board consists of four positions, according to 2018 Bylaws:

    • President – elected to a 2-year position in Dec 2024
    • Vice President – elected to a 2-year position in Oct 2023
    • Treasurer – elected to a 2-year position in Dec 2024
    • Secretary – elected to a 2-year position in Oct 2023

    These positions were sometimes modified over the history of SAEPOA, but most significantly, they were established at SAEPOA’s founding with 1-year terms, with the entire board to be up for election at the annual meeting.  That policy was changed in 2015 with the creation of 2-year “staggered” terms for the board positions.

    According to our board, however, we now work under the 1995 Bylaws.  The Board insists that this change is final and that we must live with the results.  According to 1995 Bylaws, the board has one-year positions that are elected during the annual meeting.  In this case, two positions must immediately vacate.

    • According to the Board’s decision, the vice president and secretary terms should have ended with the Fall 2024 election.  These board members should have stepped down at the 27 January meeting when they reverted the Bylaws to 1995 and their terms were therefore already expired.
    • Also according to their decision, the entire board is up for election in Oct of 2025 (no more 2-year terms)
    • According to the Board’s decision, if the SAEPOA wishes to re-establish the 2-year terms, this requires a vote of 2/3 of the members to amend the 1995 Bylaws.

    I call on the President and Secretary (the two remaining “legitimate” positions) to be consistent and notify the board members with expired terms of their removal and hold a special election for their replacement for the rest of the term.  This is not a personal slight at the individual board members, merely an acknowledgement that the Board’s actions must be consistent.

    The special election should be done prior to any major actions, such as votes on any major issues, including dissolution.

  • We’re Still “Us”

    Last night we had the pleasant surprise that our Board held an information meeting in which, although on Zoom, they allowed open discussion.  They did not use the “mute” button and they did not restrict discussion.  In my opinion, having a more open meeting did a lot to lower the temperature of the level of disagreement in the Airpark.  If we were to continue with this openness, we could perhaps accomplish a lot toward resolving our situation.  In fact, perhaps we could simply meet in person, not to vote, but just to talk.  (BTW, for those interested in such an idea, we will have another Town Hall tomorrow, 14 May, 6pm, at the Suddarth hangar).

    As grateful as we are for the opportunity to finally discuss the vote for dissolution, we still have the topics in front of us and much more discussion would be needed to properly resolve them.  I will address these in subsequent blog posts and I hope that a robust discussion can continue in the comments.

    A recurring theme made by the Board, the Working Group and their allies, mostly people not living in the airpark, is that the SAEPOA has too much contention between residents.  Some were even claiming that they felt that their personal safety was in jeopardy. (Although I personally have never seen such a thing, I will say that I cannot evaluate another persons feelings of security or insecurity.)  The Board is now saying that one of the main reasons to dissolve is to end infighting.  The problem, however is, even if we dissolve:

    • We still live in the neighborhood together.
    • We still have the same roads and common areas
    • We still have the same obligations (e.g., paying ruway access)
    • and, most importantly, we’re still the same “us”.

    The above four truths remain, no matter what our form of government is:

    •  “The Republic” – What we have now, SAEPOA, where we are all automatically “citizens” by right (and obligation) of living in the neighborhood.  We have governing documents, a board, and we all have regulated voting rights.
    • “Anarchy” – This is dissolution of SAEPOA, followed by “nothing”.  We don’t know what happens to things like roads, and we have no way of organizing, short of choosing another form of organization with enough collective will to enforce it.
    • “Volunteerism” – This is one of the ideas proposed by the Board, that low-level tasks like maintenance be performed by residents who donate their time, and perhaps money to the common interest.  This is likely to fail.
    • “Loose Confederation” – This involves ideas like voluntary associations to deal with issues like collective covenant enforcement.  This still does not resolve issues like road ownership and management.
    • “Dictatorship” — Someone takes charge by controlling our roads and common properties, with or without our consent.  For example, someone could prevail over the town commission and pressure us into accepting a public bond, or force us into a larger HOA.  People may even desire this over “anarchy”, but probably not over our “republic” if they knew this was among their choices, but it might be too late once the threat emerges.
    Between the options, I would certainly favor “the Republic” (SAEPOA), as it provides a balance between preserving our interests and giving us representation and stability.  It’s hard to imagine that switching to one of these other options will magically solve problems associated with personal relationships among neighbors.  In other words, our real problem is that “wherever you go, there you are.”  If we have neighborhood relationship problems, we should address them, rather than eliminate the structure that provides order, representation, and a means of securing our investment.  Preserving our “republic” (SAEPOA) is of particular note because the decision is irreversible.
     
    The Board seeks dissolution, as fast as possible, as a cure to contention, although most of the contention has been a direct result of this very push toward dissolution and the prior avoidance of open discussion.  We need more openness, not less.  We need more time, not less.  Bring the temperature down.  Work with your neighbors.  Even if all arguments in favor of dissolution were true and compelling (and they are certainly in contention at the very least), I would vote against dissolution because the process is irreversible and the neighborhood deserves adequate debate, proper voting process, and time to evaluate.  Anything else increases the very contention that the Board now claims it will eliminate by dissolving our one tool in which we work out our differences, the SAEPOA.
     
    Finally, I want to suggest that there is no reason to wait for creating a better airpark.  This is why EVERYONE is invited every Friday to our home.  This is why all pilots are invited on the first Saturday morning of every month.  This is why we’re doing town halls.  This is why we’re starting up Young Eagles again in the airpark.  This is why we’re organizing a fly-in event.  Rather than snip at each other, we can come together.  Although nearly every one will back the idea of doing these things (at least when in public), we are finding that those who favor keeping SAEPOA are the most likely to participate.  Maybe this is because SAEPOA provides a means of interaction and order.  Is it perfect? No.  Is it better than “anarchy”? I would argue that it definitely is.

  • Recommended Proxy Handling

    Many have contacted me to find out how they should vote “NO” to the dissolution vote planned by the Board.

    The Board sent you package with their “approved” proxy that they plan to use instead of the proper legal written vote.  The Board expects you to provide Richard Baker with an otherwise unlimited proxy as part of the process of voting(!)  A detail allows you modify the document, but the instructions could be confusing, especially since they expect you to send the document back to their care, rather than the designated proxy(!)

    I have put below a nine-step recommendation for filling out a “NO” vote that will not provide a largely unlimited proxy to the Board.  Follow the instructions carefully as the Board may attempt extra scrutiny to disallow proxies they don’t like.  Please contact me at (505) 803-2684 or at director@transparentsky.com if you have any questions.

    Your neighbor, Steve

    HERE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS:

  • Key questions that need to be addressed prior to any dissolution vote

    Many questions should be resolved before such a serious and irreversible decision is made that could greatly (and negatively) affect your home and your investment value.  The Zoom meeting format with Board-only presentations, the “raised hand”, and the mute button makes discussion difficult for so many questions to get properly resolved.  Here are some questions on my mind, and you likely have your own:

    1. Why exactly must we dissolve?  (see complexity below)
    2. What happens to our shared assets?  (Real property of roads and common areas)
    3. When is the court date on the Ponto et al. lawsuit?
    4. Why is dissolution so urgent after over 30 years of functioning?
    5. Why is the Board unilaterally ignoring NM Statutes 53-8-97 (permitting the vote to be done according to our Articles of Incorporation), and NMSA 53-8-95 (requiring that we follow our Articles of Incorporation as they are stricter)?
    6. Why is the voting process biased toward members signing over an otherwise unlimited proxy to the Board president in exchange for their vote?
    7. Why is the board the only entity that can handle proxies? Are they necessarily more trustworthy than other members?
    8. When did the Board talk with the IRS, or a tax advisor?  What did they say?
    9. Would dissolution really provide a better IRS legal shield than the corporate shield?
    10. Did the Board choose to unilaterally “roll back” bylaws to 1993 or to 1995?
    11. Depending on the year and the policy, how will they calculate refunds?
    12. How can we conform to IRS rules if we send refunds to people who never paid?
    13. Who will oversee the dissolution process? The current Board?
    14. Is it the Board who decides on what happens to our real property?
    15. Do any key board members have any potentially conflicting financial interests
    16. Could Board financial interests affect decisions about disposal of real property?
    17. What nonprofit/for-profit organizations do the board intend to work with?
    18. Is our board willing to resign if their push to dissolution fails?
    19. What will the board do if they remain in office and we do not dissolve?
    20. Does the Board’s statement that it will do no productive work (e.g., maintaining roads, charity, paying required fees, etc.) constitute abandonment of duties?

    This list could go on substantially.  Furthermore, many questions have complex components.  For example, the first question, “why must we dissolve?” has so far been given four (rather different) answers by the board.  So far:

    –          They have said that we must dissolve because of IRS problems.

    –          They stated that we need to surrender to the Ponto et al. lawsuit.

    –          They say that prior voting rules make us “illegal”.

    –          And, they say that we must dissolve the HOA to restore harmony.

    None of these topics have really been discussed properly.  A 90-minute Zoom does not work for this because: (a) individuals will not get through the questions with so few opportunities to ask, and (b) no opportunity is given for give-and-take to gain a proper answer to the questions from the Board or from general discussion.  The Zoom format assumes that the Board has all the answers, and that the membership only has questions or comments.  No provision is made for back-and-forth, which is critical to understanding these issues because of the complexity of the issues.

    Perhaps we would communicate better if the Board would provide the required minutes from any of the meetings (none provided so far), or failing that, the recordings from 2 out of 3 meetings.  Discussion could have also been furthered if the Board had held the required regular open member meetings.  Perhaps, most basically, the Board could just talk with the members neighbor-to-neighbor rather than behind the wall of Zoom meetings with the controlled process.

    For this reason, we will hold another Town Hall meeting at the Suddarth Hangar on Wednesday, 14 May.  We hope that the Board will be willing to come and discuss, face-to-face, these questions.  At this meeting, we intend to also help those with questions about the propriety of the proxy process put forth by the Board and to help people handle these proxies properly without surrendering their vote blindly to the Board president, unless they wish to do so.

    Your neighbor,

    Steve

  • Town Hall – Wednesday – 14 May – 6pm – Suddarth Hangar, 40 Blanco

    Please come to a FAIR and OPEN discussion of the SAEPOA Board’s intended vote to dissolve the Association.

    When: Wednesday, 7 May 2025, 6pm.
    Where: 40 Blanco Drive, Edgewood NM 87015

    or Zoom 

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8865752621?pwd=Z4Y0Jxwy5nXLYg37vZApbCX3i76k2c.1&omn=86997281311

    (Meeting ID: 886 575 2621, Passcode: SAEPOA)
    (we will provide snacks and drinks)

    Our draft agenda for the meeting includes:

    1. Any open discussion for or against dissolution (Board members are invited and encouraged to meet their neighbors face to face!)

    2. Processes for handling proxies.

    3. Any other open discussion.

  • Chat During SAEPOA “Information” Meeting – 12 May 2025

    If you are registered, sign in and we will see who you are.

    If you are not registered, no problem, the chat window will ask for a temporary username — just enter it and chat!

    Chat
    Loading the chat …

  • The SAEPOA Email for Dissolution Voting is Wrong and Deceptive — Don’t Respond Until You Fully Examine It!

    By now, you have probably received an email from “SAEPOA Correspondence” that has the subject line “Voting Materials Attached”.  In it, you will find two attachments and a note from the Board giving their explanation of voting law and instructions.  Both are deceptive at best — BE VERY CAREFUL IN FILLING THIS OUT.  In fact, I recommend that you at least hold off until after the informational meetings.  So, please hold off until:

    – the meeting called by the Board for 12 May
    – the “Friends” Town Hall tonight, Wednesday, 7 May
    – another Town Hall to be announced

    Make no mistake, what they are calling voting materials are not only improper, but they are also involve you sending a proxy for the board to do nearly unlimited actions — even if you send the proxy with a “no” vote.

    Here are some very large red flags from the email and the attachments:

    • The very process proposed is not compliant with state law, because state law also requires conformity with our Covenants and Articles of Incorporation that necessitate documented signatures from 2/3 of the members (66 lots), not a simple vote in a meeting.
    • The board has yet to recognize the need for a 2/3 majority of lot owners in order to dissolve.
    • The board tells you to send your proxy for Richard Baker (clearly someone strongly in favor of dissolution), even if you are voting against dissolution.
    • Beyond the dissolution vote, Richard would be allowed to use your proxy for anything he pleased.  The proxy states this explicitly — ” The Proxy shall have full power, as the substitute of the Member(s), to represent the
      undersigned Members and vote the membership interest of the Member(s) on all issues and motions that are properly
      presented at the Meeting for which this designation of proxy is effective. The Proxy shall have the authority to vote in the
      discretion of the Proxy except as provided above.      “
    • The board could use your proxy to vote for all kinds of things.  What kind of things?  Well, in the past, they’ve improperly reversed 30 years of governance, refused to do any productive work, and authorized $25K of your SAEPOA money ($250/lot!) for legal stuff.  What will they do empowered by your vote against your wishes?
    • Although there is a statement that you can “write in” another proxy, the email clearly misleads by stating “President Richard Baker is listed as the proxy and must cast your vote”.  This is akin to taking a political candidate off of a ballot, but then assuring you that voters can write in a name.
    • The board instructs you to send the proxy to the SAEPOA board, rather than the recipient of your choice.  You now have to trust them.
    • In truth, you can send a proxy to any member, and it does not require that you use the process outlined by the board.

  • Urgent Town Hall – Wednesday – 7 May – Suddarth Hangar, 40 Blanco

    Please come to a FAIR and OPEN discussion of the SAEPOA Board’s recent vote that they just called and sent out voting materials.

    When: Wednesday, 7 May 2025, 6pm.
    Where: 40 Blanco Drive, Edgewood NM 87015

    or Zoom 

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8865752621?pwd=Z4Y0Jxwy5nXLYg37vZApbCX3i76k2c.1&omn=89869084323

    (Meeting ID: 886 575 2621, Passcode: SAEPOA)
    (we will provide snacks and drinks)

    Our draft agenda for the meeting includes:

    1. An analysis of the voting package sent by the Board.  (The Board is quite welcome to come and comment.)

    2. A discussion on the timeline and notice for voting.

    3. A response from the board (if any are present) regarding why the voting has started prior to the information meetings.

    4. Any shared advice as to how to ensure that the voting is proper.  (e.g., Is it proper to send proxies for both “yes” and “no” votes to the board president who is clearly intending to vote in favor of dissolution?)

    5. What are the risks of a hasty vote?

  • After this Board – A Better Airpark Future!

    To steal from the words of a recent Presidential speech: “You don’t need new rules or a new organization.  You just need a new board.”

    What you don’t need from a board:

    • An open declaration that no productive work will be done (not doing HOA work because we’re a charity, not doing charity because we’re an HOA).
    • Spending 10’s and perhaps 100’s of thousands on lawyers, who will not talk to you and are likely working against you — with your dues money.
    • Roads that continue to deteriorate.
    • Unclear motives and direction — at best.
    • Unwillingness to engage in open discussion and debate.
    • Constant attempts to engineer conditions to dissolve the Association.

    Rather, what you need is a board that:

    • Will maximize funds for productive work!! (Why we even have SAEPOA!)
    • Is active with charity and the community
    • Is neighborly
    • Is open to discussion, including the difficult kinds
    • Will follow the rules that you make
    • Will protect your investment
    • Does not have hidden business motives

    We should immediately prepare for this better future.  Join us!  I am just calling this informal group “Friends of SAEPOA”, because rather than tearing our association and airpark down, we will build it up, have fun, reach out to the community and do so much more.

    • We meet every Friday — just for fun — at our place (normally, no politics, just food, fun and airplane talk)
    • We are working with organizations like EAA to do activities like the upcoming Young Eagles Rally on 17 May
    • We host a pilot’s breakfast for EAA (and non-EAA pilots) every month
    • We will make sure that we do things like the Santa Fly-In 
    • We are planning a first Sandia Airpark Fly-In for the 4th of July with the coordination of Sandia Airpark, Inc.
    • We will defend your property rights!
    • We host meetings for all property owners, including those who disagree with us in order to have the tough conversations that our current Board is unwilling to host
    • We will ensure that, to the best of our ability, that your dues gets put to work for the betterment of the airpark, rather than to pay lawyers who are likely against you.

    It is my sincere hope that out of this group we will find the volunteers to form a new board that does what is actually needed, rather than to seek our harm.

    It is my hope that you will join us, no matter where you stand on our political issues.  We can plan a better path ahead together with more of the neighborhood together.  Also, out of this group, we can form up who we really want on the new board…the board that will actually help us!

    Finally, as a personal disclosure, I understand that my role in trying to stop this rogue board is controversial for some.  Thus, neither Deborah nor I plan to run for any board positions, although we are also not unwilling to do so.  In the meantime, we’re having fun organizing and doing the “friends” activities!

  • Hilarious, but Disturbing — A Sneaky Way to Announce a Vote!

    Yesterday, you received a SAEPOA correspondence with the subject “Special Meeting Notices (2)”, and it opened with the following statement:

    “Dear Members, A few members have requested more meetings and discussion on the issues facing the association and the subject of  solving them through dissolution. We are therefore holding two more meetings on the subject (please see below)”

    Only at the very bottom of the message (very last words) does the message state the real intention:

    “vote on the matter.” [of dissolution!]

    In other words, you’ve just been given 20 days notice that we will hold a vote in contravention to our Articles of Incorporation (vote not properly taken), to dissolve the airpark association and likely take away your collective property and give it to “someone” that the Board determines.

    You weren’t notified in the message header.

    You weren’t notified in the opening paragraph.

    In fact, you were told that these were meetings for “discussion”.

    If you were busy, you would miss it and suffer the consequences.

    Furthermore, the meetings themselves are a farce.  The Board is claiming that you’ll get to discuss, but the first meeting will be the same, controlled Zoom-only format we’ve come to loathe.  The second meeting will be in-person, but that’s because they’ll take the vote and already have proxies settled before the meeting begins.

    This is rigged!

     

  • Is Our Board Trying To Do Creative Voting?

    Recently, the board and, curiously the plaintiff suing them, have accused me of trying to stop voting.  This is flatly untrue — we have procedures and the Board needs to follow them.  This is particularly true for the most significant vote of the history of our Association, the vote to dissolve it.

    Our Articles of Incorporation, which are our highest document in the Association, state the following:

    Article VIII – Dissolution: “The association may be dissolved with the assent given in writing and signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the members.”

    This is therefore a special vote, not secret, because the members need to sign.  It also needs to be inclusive of all members, not just those who show up at a meeting or send a proxy.  No provision is made for non-returned ballots because the only thing that counts is the signature of 2/3 or more of the members (lots).

    I find it interesting that the Board appears studiously disinterested in discussing how they will call the dissolution vote and how voting will be done properly after campaigning on HOA voting policies.

    The Board appears to be trying to pull a fast one by using a much weaker requirement from the state law’s “default”, which is to have a 2/3 vote in a meeting that can include proxies.  They say that they want open voting, but it looks like they really want to see if they can get a lucky win in a meeting.

    This is not legal, as NM Statute 53-8-95 (2024) states:

    “Whenever, with respect to any action to be taken by the members or directors of a corporation, the articles of incorporation or bylaws require the vote or concurrence of a greater proportion of the directors or members or any class of members than required by the Nonprofit Corporation Act, the provisions of the articles of incorporation or bylaws shall control.“

    They need to follow the law — that includes our governing documents!  … and they need to clear about this!