Home
Blog
Cookout Info

Login/Register

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

Category: Keeping SAEPOA

  • Regarding the 3 Sep 2025 Town Hall for nominating election candidates

    I want to address the Board’s request for transparency from the informal Town Hall we held for election nominations.  Last week, when challenged by the Board (through Brent Middleton) to provide a meeting record, I responded that we would try to provide a recording or minutes from our Town Hall last Wednesday.  During the Town Hall, some participants objected to providing recordings as it unfairly provides information to Board members who have previously used such recordings to select material for personal attacks.  Meanwhile, the Board shares no information at all regarding its activities or deliberations.  I have balanced both positions, and I am providing the following summary (essentially minutes).  I also challenge the Board to show similar transparency to what they are asking from the general membership.  We members are providing minutes from our informal meeting, shared as a courtesy.  In contrast, such transparency is required on the Board’s part, but so far, it has essentially provided no information to the membership.  It is my sincere hope that the Board will not engage in a double standard.

    Please keep in mind that ALL lot owners were invited to the Town Hall, and Zoom was provided for those not in the Airpark.  No board members, nor any of their allies in the “Working Group”, came to the meeting despite repeated invitations.

    Here is a summary:

    The Town Hall focused on nominations for upcoming elections. Discussions highlighted the current board’s ineffectiveness and disinterest in supporting the HOA—thus the need for a new board. Key issues included alarmism over the Association’s 501(c)(3) status, failure to take any action to resolve the tax status, the Board’s attempt to dissolve the association, see-sawing governance rules, and attacks on members by the Board.  The group discussed removing problematic board members and replacing them with members would: (1) resume HOA duties, (2) pay bills owed, (3) support charities, (4) stop wasting money on lawyers, (5) disclose any hidden business interests, (6) protect our collective assets, and (7) restore a sense of community and fun to the Airpark.

    It’s expected that 2026 will still be challenging, as only two positions are open for election, and the association members must continue to resist Mr. Powers’ attempts to dissolve and give away our property to “someone”.  However, we can start healing in this neighborhood by reducing the influence of this destructive board and perhaps also by assisting a speedy and successful end to the litigation we now face.  SAEPOA can make a full recovery after one year (for 2027), perhaps sooner with cooperation or resignation of remaining board members.  The group also discussed a desire to improve on governance in general – better than all prior boards, not just the current one.  Defining an ideal future for the HOA is something in which we should have general discussion.

    The group discussed potential candidates, emphasizing electability and knowledge.  Possible candidates for Vice President were suggested, as well as possible candidates for Secretary.  Consensus emerged over those potential candidates.  In the following days, the candidates would be approached.  These candidates have all shown dedication to the welfare of the community and seek to build up the organization that they would serve.  Preference would be focused on those who have avoided lawsuits and have shown willingness to work with all parties in the Airpark, while seeking candidates who are interested in building up the HOA, the community, and our joint property.  Only certain names were discussed in the meeting, but the direction was clear, and candidates were to be sought in the following days.

    The result of the meeting, its follow-on (and some old-fashioned freelance volunteerism!) is the following slate of excellent candidates:

    VP – Kevin Pace

    Sec’y – Brad Case

    Architectural Control Committee

    Kristy Case

    John Gallette

    Jeff Johnston

    Maintenance Committee

    John Lorenz

    Dana MacMillan

    Deborah Suddarth

  • Town Hall – Wednesday – 3 Sep – 6pm – Suddarth Hangar, 40 Blanco

    Tomorrow we will host a Town Hall meeting in the Suddarth hangar to discuss nominations for the upcoming SAEPOA board elections.  

    We will have food and drink for those who come in-person, and we will also have a Zoom link for those who are away.  We ask (require) that those living in the Airpark come to the hangar rather than Zoom, reserving Zoom for those who cannot attend in-person.

    When: Wednesday, 3 Sep 2025, 6pm.
    Where: 40 Blanco Drive, Edgewood NM 87015

    or Zoom 

    https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8865752621?pwd=Z4Y0Jxwy5nXLYg37vZApbCX3i76k2c.1&omn=81912029323

    (Meeting ID: 886 575 2621, Passcode: SAEPOA)

    Here are some items we will discuss:

    1. What are the ideal directions for the HOA in the future? (i.e., why does this election matter?)
      1. Actually resolve the “tax issue”
      2. Restore proper governance (follow law, articles of incorporation, bylaws, etc.)
      3. Pay bills currently owed
      4. Find an expeditious and cost-effective end to the lawsuits
      5. Ensure we are properly insured
      6. Restart road maintenance, etc.
      7. Assist in any community events, charity, etc.
    2. Two positions are open for this election – Vice President and Secretary.
    3. Discuss potential candidates
    4. How will two newly elected board members restore order during the year that the other two positions are still held by the prior board that appears to only seek dissolution of the HOA?
      1. How can we (homeowners) best support these new board members?
      2. What positive actions can we do in the neighborhood to restore operation/order during that year, if possible?
      3. How do we prepare for the following election when we can fully restore SAEPOA and use it to secure our property rights and restore the neighborhood to proper operation?
    5. How should we look at our SAEPOA election in the context of the town commission election also coming up?

    We hope to see you there!

    Your neighbor,

    Steve

  • Why We Need a New Board

    We hope you have enjoyed a fun summer, and it is now time to address some of the issues facing our airpark.  Specifically, we should nominate candidates that can replace those of our current unusual board. (See prior blog posts for why this board is … remarkable).

    It’s now approximately 2 months until the next board election (early October).  Normally, the board itself convenes a nominating committee to search for candidates.  In this case, however, we don’t expect the board to do anything that is not self-serving, so we can expect that either they will simply nominate themselves and expect to run unopposed or they will likely nominate only those who agree with their agenda of avoiding HOA responsibilities and attempting to dissolve.

    For those new to the current political situation of the Airpark, the Board has a clear agenda:

    1. Convince the members of impending doom due to tax status and claims that past voting procedures were unfair. (Note: they have not allowed quarterly membership meetings or voting on normal issues despite their claims of prior voting irregularities. They also refuse to interact with the IRS or a proper tax attorney to resolve tax status.)
    2. Destroy the HOA.
    3. Transfer its assets (your collective property) to an entity (name undisclosed) that they will control, or at least influence.
    4. Abandon the normal duties of the HOA, claiming that it can’t do HOA work because we are formed as a charity, and claiming that we can’t do any charity because we are formed as an HOA. Thus, the only thing that the board allows is use of your funds to pay lawyers that serve their interests and administrative expenses at their own discretion.
    This agenda is possibly driven by outside business interests of one or more board members that may be in conflict with the best interests of the Airpark, but it’s difficult to know the nature and extent of the possible conficts.  Key board members refuse to provide full disclosure on the extent of the investments, their future personal real estate development plans, and how they may relate to the Airpark’s future.

    Recent Timeline:

    May 22 (2 months ago): The Board hosted the only in-person meeting of 2025 (despite the requirement for quarterly membership meetings).  This meeting was called for one purpose only – to attempt a dissolution vote of the HOA that fortunately failed. The board even promised a “refund” ($1,700) if the measure succeeded.  No other business was allowed to be considered or discussed. 

    June 4 (2 weeks after losing the vote): The Board sent a somber mass email stating that they would work with the membership to resolve issues they claimed were reasons for seeking dissolution. They used terms suggesting wrongful and illegal actions by past HOA boards, again without proof.  (Fear tactics again—again without proof.) 

    June 10 (See Town of Edgewood website, Town Commission Meeting, June 10, 2025, video): The Board has done nothing observable or documented in these past 2 months, except go to an Edgewood town commission meeting in which they:

    (1) insisted that we don’t own our property (roads), and

    (2) launched accusations against those who disagree with them using disrespectful terms unheard of in a public meeting.

    (3) wrongfully accused those who disagree with them of creating a “shadow board” and thus not respecting the authority of the board.

    July 9: The Board sent an email to the membership, clearly in response to a prod from one of the members, that can be best summarized as follows:

    • The Board claims it’s working on solutions (in private, without involving the membership although promised in the June 4 email).
    • The Board is defending against lawsuits (consequences of the Board’s own actions)
    • They’re “exploring” structural reforms to address the tax status (no specifics, no discussion, no sharing).
    • They solicit donations for “volunteer” efforts to do the duties of the HOA for which you have already paid dues.
    • They smear those who disagree with them, claiming (inaccurately) that those who are suing them are doing email campaigns and criticism. They accuse their opponents of “inaccurate claims, misrepresentations, personal attacks, and inflammatory rhetoric”.  They then invite “constructive input”, but the rest of the email indicates that they are working in private without any involvement from the membership.

    We have proposed the formation of committees to resolve problems. (Sadly, to date, no committees exist, nor has the Board communicated anything regarding what they view as required actions.) When we stopped discussing the way ahead, we were accused by board allies of not proposing a way ahead but simply criticizing their actions.  So, the Board and its allies see proposing a way ahead as meddling and not proposing a way ahead as destructive criticism.  We can’t satisfy this board, and in either event, this board does not respond to, nor reach out to, the membership.  We can’t create a healthy airpark with this board. Now is the time to change that.

    In short, we need a new board.  We need nominees to set this ship straight!  Please contact me if you’re brave and ready to confront the current Board’s mismanagement and abuse of power.

  • What an Ideal SAEPOA Board (and Nominees) Should Do

    The current board should resign completely and make room for a new board for reasons we have previously discussed.  However, absent that, we need to replace the two positions up for election this October (vice president and secretary).  As we think about who should be on that board, we should consider what the board should do.  This includes:

    • Resume performance of HOA duties, until/unless a clear legal restriction prevents it, such as a court order.
    • Resolve any questions about whether we are proper or improper with our current 501(c)(3) tax status. Take any required corrective action regarding tax status. (e.g. write a letter to the IRS requesting that the status be changed to a regular non-profit without the 501(c)(3) tax status).  Note: To date, there is no record of adjudicated wrongful actions by the HOA. None.  There is also no record of negative interaction with the IRS on the part of the Association.
    • Settle all lawsuits in the most direct way possible. (The Board can settle this one. No membership approval required.)
      1. The roads lawsuit is easy – just acknowledge that we own what we own – the roads.
      2. The dissolution lawsuit is also easy – if the tax status is resolved (see second bullet above), the lawsuit’s premise is moot.
      3. Reduce legal expenses, ideally to zero. (The Board needs no membership approval.)
    • Obtain HOA insurance.
    • Pay bills for debts clearly owed – such as paying the runway fees for which we are in arears, and which our current board refuses to pay.
    • Prepare quarterly Treasurer’s Reports:
      1. Disclose the state of our accounts to the membership frequently and thoroughly.
      2. Communicate plans effectively with the membership about the use of the funds for long-term objectives (such as road paving, even if it will take decades to complete).
      3. Designate a portion of funds to repair roads and other common property. (2/3 membership written approval required)
    • Hold the required quarterly membership meetings IN PERSON. Zoom can be used, too, to allow all members to participate whether they’re here locally or not.
    • Honor our founding documents and bylaws. Where 2/3 votes are required, seek them.  Don’t try to get around the membership.  (Amazingly, our current board campaigned on this issue, claiming that prior boards had not treated membership votes with proper procedure and respect.  Since taking office, the Board now rules by fiat, and changes the Bylaws, ignores the Articles of Incorporation, and makes sweeping changes with no voting whatsoever.)
    • Build up the HOA, make it better, and serve the community – rather than devote efforts to destroying it.
      1. Organize, lead, and participate in charitable events, as stated in our founding documents
      2. Host events to build up the airpark, rather than to divide it.
      3. Honor our commitments to the community – our roads are privately owned, but public access. Keep the access public.
      4. Invite the community to participate in airpark activities
    • Have fun!

    Unless all of our (4) current board members resign together (an appropriate action), the new nominees should expect a difficult year of service, if elected.  Those seeking to destroy the HOA (and perhaps the airpark) have entrenched themselves rather thoroughly in our board, and these new members would likely find that the remaining (incumbent) members (board president and treasurer) would resist doing those things that will build up the airpark, as mentioned above.  However, the effort would be well worth it.  Our neighborhood is a great airpark, in some sense the jewel of the East Mountains.  We should preserve it, improve it, and use it for the benefit of its residents and the community it shares.

  • Response to the Board Email of 9 July 2025

    What follows is the response to the Board’s email that was sent in response to Sarah Wilson’s “prod” regarding board inaction after the 22 May meeting in which dissolution was attempted by the Board.  This message was originally sent on 10 July 2025.

    Dear Board,

     

    There’s a lot to discuss from your email.  I must, however, point out that your email contains serious non-factual accusations.  To illustrate, I’ll break down your first point, “lawsuit defense”:

     

    • In speaking of the lawsuits, you refer to “one blocking the repaving of Rainbow Road”.  No such lawsuit exists, you know it, and you are highly mischaracterizing that particular suit, which merely seeks “quiet title”, in other words for a judge to settle that SAEPOA owns its property, namely its roads.
    • You say you are being sued by “Friends of SAEPOA” and say “nothing friendly about a lawsuit”.  You know that this is not correct.  I am the one who coined the name “Friends of SAEPOA” simply to give a title to the blog and gatherings that are welcome to all (including YOU!!).  I am not a party to any lawsuit, and you know that as well.  You are not being sued by “Friends of SAEPOA”, and you know it.
    • You say that we tried to stop the legal process altogether.  This is, again, a gross misrepresentation.  First of all, the “Friends of SAEPOA” took no such action.  I am aware that the plaintiffs on the roads lawsuit (not “Friends of SAEPOA”) sought an injunction for two items (1) postponing any dissolution vote until any ongoing litigation is resolved (what I understand is a normal process—an organization can’t dissolve until its affairs are settled), and (2) to require any such votes to be done according to state law.  Following the law would have required that you observe the vote process specified in our Articles of Incorporation that you chose to ignore in order to get around the 66 written vote requirement specified therein.
    • You mischaracterize the judge’s action, saying that “he did not stop the election”.  You don’t state that this is because the judge never ruled nor even heard the case.  The judge wasn’t even involved!  The request for injunction was removed from the docket because your 22 May vote happened prior to the hearing, and so the injunction was moot.
    • I seriously doubt that you spent tens of thousands to hold the vote on 22 May.  If you did, shame on you.
    • You only briefly mention the “other lawsuit” to stop what you call “IRS violations and other illegal acts” that you have only alleged and never proven.  You don’t seem to have any interest in pointing out that this lawsuit was filed by the personal attorney of one of the board members, and that the content of the lawsuit is in disturbing alignment with the arguments the board has used in its attempt to dissolve the Association.  (Effectively, this looks like the board is suing itself.)

    These are just the misrepresentations by our board in the first bullet of their email!

     

    Frankly, the tone of the Board’s email is unsurprising in that this board is still not reaching out to the membership, holding meetings, providing meaningful updates, forming committees, etc.  It’s completely unclear if they seek any resolution to their (self-defined) problems that are the Board’s justification for doing no productive work with the association funds.  They continue to spend only on administrative, legal, and insurance expenses.  Solutions are available if this board will only meet with, communicate, and in some cases, compromise with your neighbors, something it refuses to do.  It’s unclear what the Board has ever wanted other than the destruction of the Association and whatever they thought would follow such action (which the Board still refuses to share with the membership).

     

    Board members: you started with nearly $200K of our money in the coffers.  You’re spending it fighting your neighbors instead of helping them, but there is still probably well over $150K.  I recommend using it to pay bills such as the runway access fee that you owe, and to do the tasks that you now want us to pay separately for via “Sandia Airpark Volunteers”.  I will happily pay my dues to the Association to do its job.  I’m not interested in paying another fee to provide excuses to the board to avoid the work it’s supposed to do, and to use our dues money against us.

     

    Your neighbor,

     

    Steve Suddarth

  • 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.

  • 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:

  • 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 …

  • 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!

  • Town Hall – Tonight – 6PM – Suddarth Hangar, 40 Blanco

    Please come tonight to a FAIR and OPEN discussion of the SAEPOA Board’s plan to dissolve our airpark association.

    When: Wednesday, 30 April 2025, 6pm.
    Where: 40 Blanco Drive, Edgewood NM 87015

    or Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/8865752621?pwd=Z4Y0Jxwy5nXLYg37vZApbCX3i76k2c.1&omn=82882956401 (Meeting ID: 886 575 2621, Passcode: SAEPOA)
    (we will provide snacks and drinks)

    Our draft agenda for the meeting includes:

    1. A brief history of the airpark as relevant to governance, rules, IRS status, etc.

    2. Do we really have a problem with the IRS? If so, how severe?

    3. What possible remedies exist (if needed)? Do we really have to end the association?

    4. What’s the rush? Do we have to vote now? Or can we go a little longer since it took 30 years to get here?

    5. Should we treat the lawsuit for dissolution as serious or frivolous?

    6. Can the association “refund” dues? If so, according to what formula?

    7. Are property values going down as the board says? or going up as sales data indicate?

    8. What are the best ways to resolve conflict in the neighborhood?

    9. What comes next if the airpark is dissolved?

    10. What are the risks to the airpark’s infrastructure (e.g., roads), and risks to our ability to fly?