Blocking Open Board Seats - Election Interference

Hi Everyone!

In December, our HOA held elections for 2 open Director seats. I gave notice of my candidacy in writing to the Board and published it on my HOA blog. The Board acknowledged my email prior to the election.

Having given notice 6 weeks in advance of the election, I expected my statement of candidacy to go out with the Annual Homeowner Meeting Notice, which is only mailed out 10 days in advance of the meeting. This had been our consistent practice in past years.

Not this year. The problem is that there is broad dissatisfaction with these Directors, with one of them escaping a removal vote early in 2023 that received a majority of votes, but did not meet the CCIOA 67% requirement for removal. Two Directors resigned in 2023, including myself.

While you can read details about my electoral history on the website (including video of these meetings going back to 2019), it is the other Directors resignation that is probably more important. The most civil even-tempered person that they can't attack his character or demeanor. He found that he can't work with inflexible individuals who operate ignorant of the law - sometimes willfully. They have the votes, so its a waste of time.

And, most of the rest of the community has recognized that this small plurality of homeowners has used Proxy Hoarding to dominate our elections - sometimes carrying 22-24 proxies out of 87 votes. It's how the other Director avoided removal.

So, the removal attempt on me in January of 2023 was coupled, at the same meeting with the same Petition, to change our Bylaws. They were upset that they had to keep following due process to remove me, without cause. Simply for disagreeing with them, although they manufacture a character flaw due to the fact that I did try to enforce the law on them with litigation in 2020, as CCIOA provides NO OTHER resolution to disputes (advocacy for ADR). In other words, a form of retaliation, which Colorado does not provide protections like Hawaii or Nevada (which are good models for legislation we should consider).

The agenda for that meeting put the removal votes for 2 Directors first, and then Amending the Bylaws to the 3rd position. The Petitioners set the agenda, so they were informed prior to the meeting that the Bylaw could not retroactively apply to the removal votes. You see, they wanted to change the Bylaws to ban removed directors for 3 years - without any cause or even stated reason. This makes it a purely political action.

When they removed me in October of 2022 for taking an open seat in May at an open election, they literally said out loud "we don't have to give you a reason". Then, one of the Petitioners stood up and said because I had previously filed litigation (because the Board was violating the law), I should be removed. Even though we had signed a Settlement Agreement. In other words, if you dare to do the JOB that the State of Colorado puts entirely on homeowners (enforcement of CCIOA on rogue HOA Boards), you can be subjected to removal and a BAN!

But, wait, it gets crazier.

When we get to the next attempt at removal in January of 2023, they realize at the beginning of the meeting that the agenda is out of sequence. So, they amend the agenda with a vote at the beginning of the meeting for the Bylaw to ban removed Directors for 3 years. They had no prepared language, and the Chair of the meeting (President of the HOA) refuses to allow the matter to be referred to committee to figure out the actual language, and perhaps consider having a REASON attached to such a ban.

You see, the Non-Profit Act in CRS 7-128-109 gives the Courts the SOLE POWER to create such bans. In other words, a judge, who can actually impartially adjudicate facts, then has to see if it meets the criteria of the statute. Poudre Overlook HOA, however, wants to usurp the power of the Courts, and change the law to have NO CRITERIA. If you get the votes, you can ban someone!

The President of POHOA then ruled that the motion to move to it committee was "dilatory" and "out of order", and silenced those of us trying to speak on the matter. The vote proceeded, and was passed with a small majority. In fact, a similar vote that failed to remove one of the directors, with almost all parties voting along the same lines.

Prior to my vote, I submitted my written resignation. I knew in advance I would not survive the vote (it had just happened in October, and there was no reason to presume anyone had changed their minds).

Initially, the President said the vote was moot. But, then there were 3 separate arguments. First was to create an on-the-fly process to REFUSE TO ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. No one had read the Bylaws (except me and a couple others), which state unequivocally that a resignation is effective the moment it is given in writing and received by the Board. It's on video.

Yet, the last argument was that my resignation was "out of order", and that the vote should proceed anyways. The vote went 49-3 against me.

The problem is that the Bylaw, even though voted upon, wasn't effective on that evening of the meeting. In fact, the other resigned Director went to Altitude Law (prominent in these HOA discussions) to ask the question. Noneother than Alina Gilbert stated unequivocally that Bylaws do not become effective until they are SIGNED. Since the language wasn't even really voted upon at the meeting, the Board met a WEEK LATER (on 2/2/23), and finally signed the bylaw. The Board was informed THAT DAY by Ms. Gilbert IN WRITING that the Bylaw was not effective retroactively - so the ban accompanying the ill-advised vote to remove me could not be legally enforced.

The POHOA Board refused to say whether or not I was banned for the rest of the year. They ignored emails, and they wouldn't answer direct questions at meetings.

When I finally submitted my self-nomination, in writing, on October 14, 2023, the Board had the opportunity to put in writing their decision. They ignored the email and followup for weeks, which included references demonstrating that the Resignation was effective per the Bylaws, and that the Amended Bylaw could not possibly be enforced retroactively (which is why they changed the agenda sequence, so they already knew this). They simply didn't realize before the meeting that the vote didn't make it effective because some of the Board members are . . . attorneys (or their spouses are). So, they took unqualified legal advice from people they should not have (and one of them has never practiced law in Colorado to boot!).

So, at the 11/14 meeting, the President finally said out loud that they thought the ban was effective - as they were shooing everyone out of the room for an Executive Session.

They ignored emails up until the 12/5 meeting that made unclear if they would KNOWINGLY attempt to enforce the Amended Bylaw in the face of actual legal advice to the contrary.

I had to attend another meeting the same night as our Annual Homeowner's Meeting, and asked for remote electronic access. They denied/ignored my request.

When I arrived at the meeting, I told them I was leaving early (maybe or maybe not before elections), and that I was giving my proxy to another homeowner - along with my written ballot which I stated should be counted.

I did, in fact, leave early. Not for the least of reasons, the Treasurer, who delayed the election by giving a pitch for the 9th time at an open meeting advising the HOA to put their reserves into GOLD COINS which would be sold by the Coin Shop where he happened to work. He began his presentation by saying he was very sick, having just starting showing symptoms 2 days prior. I put my mask on right away, and was astounded at this lack of courtesy for exposing everyone else at the meeting.

My proxy then stated that I was self-nominated when the first seat was offered up for contesting. She asked for floor-nominations, and, surprisingly, the SPOUSE of the President self-nominated. Then retracted. Then re-self-nominated. And, because the President refused to accept my self-nomination on the grounds that even if it was disputed that my resignation was effective, she was going to honor the INTENT of the petitioners to ban me. So, in other words, the President/Chair was claiming it wasn't her decision, but literally put the liability for enforcement back on those who voted for my removal and expected an application of the 3-year ban.

For the first seat, it wasn't relevant. I would have lost.

But, then the second seat nominations were opened. Again, my proxy raised the issue of my self-nomination, and the President repeated the excuses. This is where the rubber hits the road.

You see, Section 66 of Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) are in play at POHOA because the governing documents are SILENT regarding nomination (no requirement for a floor nomination, no nominating committee, and literally not one word about nominations). So, since written nominations are the common practice of POHOA, and since nominations in advance of meetings is allowed per RONR, my written self-nomination is effective regardless of anything the Chair does.

Even more importantly, however, RONR states that NO NOMINATION IS NECESSARY when votes are submitted via secret ballot. And, I had, in fact, written my name on the ballot (and there was a second vote from my neighbor, whose proxy I carried), and it was given to the proxy. RONR says that even if a party is not nominated, VOTES FOR THEM COUNT.

The problem is that the President/Chair didn't collect ballots because there was no other candidate.

There was even a discussion of reducing the number of seats (to eliminate the open seat), but the Board responded at the meeting that they wanted to have the option to fill it later. In other words, block a legitimate candidate at the meeting, and avoid scrutiny of their hand-picked person (who might be one of their spouses) to fill it later without the Owners having the power to weigh in on the choice.

This can't possibly be how HOA Elections are supposed to be run, and I openly question whether the Board, moving forward, is not illegitimate to the point where its actions are legally ineffective. Huge issue when we have a Board that is actively planning to sue homeowners for having a Pit Bull (and have spent thousands in legal fees in the past 18 months, consuming the entire HOA legal budget). In fact, our President TESTIFIED to this at the 1/2/24 HOA Task Force Meeting!

But, after I testified on 1/2 as well, another stakeholder referred to a "landmark case" regarding HOA elections, and upon first review, it appears there may be interesting crossover topics to the situation I'm describing above.

Bottom line: The HOA Task Force needs to review the documented cases of abuse of HOA Elections processes. Even if they are isolated cases (as some here have said that 85% of HOAs have no problems, so why take action!?!), there is no reason any ONE of them should be allowed to get away without without remedy or consequence.

We don't say that because the majority of Americans are not murdered we should not have laws against murder. That is absurd.

Similarly, the concept that we have to show that a majority of HOAs are experiencing us to predicate action is equally absurd.

Please review the documentation of this situation at www.poudreoverlookhoa.com