DESPERATE RECRUITERS: POHOA Board Disbands New Secret Architecture Committee Over “Lack of Interest”

Apparently, the POHOA Board is unable to recruit a single homeowner to form the minority of a new committee formed just 2 months ago. The formation of the committee remains a mystery, and the POHOA Board dodged direct questions about the committee by email, and refused to acknowledge a direct request to join the committee – and then disbanded the committee at the 11/14/23 meeting (the one immediately following the one that created it) without any explanation.

The first clue about the committee came with the Agenda for the 9/6/23 meeting, where the cryptic words “a. Architectural Guidelines Special Committee” were added to the Unfinished Business section. This is curious because, well, there’s not a clear line back to what business from the prior meeting was unfinished.

If we review the Agenda from the 7/11/23 Meeting Agenda, we see that in New Business, we see “Proposed Architectural Guidelines Committee Charter” is on the list. But, there is no presentation of this charter in the uploaded documents. And, under the leadership of President Lora Weber, anyone who attends the meeting who asks for a copy of the document is told they are not allowed to see them – or some other angry retort.

The 7/11/23 Meeting Minutes are also cryptic. They were not published on the Frontsteps website until 9/8/23. I suspect that Director John Tunna, who had advocated for compliance with SB23-178, may have drafted a charter for the committee. I believe he wished to participate in the committee as well, and perhaps chair the committee. He and I had discussions after SB23-178 regarding required compliance by 8/10/23.

Yet, all we see in the Meeting Minutes is that the Board discussed some document and proposed edits before tabling the matter:

However, in between the 7/11 and 9/6 meeting, Dr. John Tunna resigned as a Director. So, going into the 9/6/23 meeting, we only see that the topic was added to the agenda. No copy of the original or edited proposed charter was made available to homeowners.

I was unable to attend that meeting, and following up after the meeting (On September 10), I asked about the formation of the Committee, when it was meeting, and what its agenda was. President Ballweber ignored emails for weeks, but eventually wrote back on October 3, again in her angry tone dodging the questions with non-answers:

Note that she claims that no committee had been formed. If we fast-forward, however, to the Meeting Minutes published on November 15 for the 9/6/23 Meeting, we see a contradictory statement:

It is noted that on October 3, President Ballweber writes that no committee has been formed, and that once it is, that recruitment would be done through the “official digital communication channel”. The Meeting Minutes, however, indicate that, instead, the committee was formed with 3 members: Gloria Jones (Spouse of Clay Jones, Director & Treasurer), Walker Flanary (Director), and Buck Hammond (President of the PID). And, somehow, either the Board or this group determined the committee would have 5 members – making the remaining 2 members a minority on this committee dominated by these hand-picked individuals.

We’ve seen this movie on rerun for 5 years now. A small group of homeowners dominates and controls the governance of this HOA, and only allows participation that is for show – they create a dominating majority so that any opposition or dissent is silenced, outvoted, and rendered meaningless (and a waste of time). It’s rumored to largely be why Dr. John Tunna resigned as he could not get cooperation or collaboration – including on this initiative.

So, it is clear that President Ballweber, on October 3, is either being dishonest, or at the very least, putting off telling the whole truth. Either way, it is clear that recruitment for the remaining members was not done in an open an public way through the digital communication channel (email? Frontsteps website?), but rather in the way things have always been done at POHOA. The people who substantially control governance invited only select homeowners that already agree with them so they can rubber-stamp their wishes into policy or document revision.

The problem here with President Ballweber’s narrative, however, is that I asked some of these questions IN ADVANCE of the 9/6/23 Meeting – including whether all homeowners would be invited to participate in the committee. Later, I also asked detailed questions about compliance with the Open Meetings Act – which all HOAs are required to follow as part of Colorado State Law.

President Ballweber’s 10/3 response (more than a month after the questions were posed) includes two specific falsehoods:

• That the committee had not been formed or determined any membership
• That the committee was recruiting through some “official digital communication channel”

At the bottom of this article is a pdf copy of my 8/30/23 email for full transparency.

However, we then have the events at the 11/14/23 meeting, which raises not only questions about this flash-in-the-pan mystery committee, but also about whether the POHOA Board still intends to comply with SB23-178, which was in regards to expansion of rights to grow vegetable and/or pollinating flower gardens in the front, side, or back yards, and to use more lenient xeriscaping guidelines.

What we learn on 9/6/23 is that in spite of President Ballweber’s claim of no committee being formed, and there being no members, Gloria Jones appears to have been assigned the duty of coming up with 3 compliant landscaping designs – which appears to be part of the agenda you would expect from this Special Architectural Committee. So, was she assigned this individually?

There is no record of a vote. It just . . . happened. Gloria is in charge by . . . the Board dictating that it is so. No one else is invited, no other interested parties are considered in a process. She just gets the job and controls the options that will eventually be codified.

But, then we get to November 14 meeting, which I did attend. And, when this same item appears on the agenda, for which the Board would not respond with any meaningful or material information, surprises all of us by announcing a motion to disband the committee that, again, President Ballweber claimed had not been formed!

It’s a curious use of Parliamentary procedure to disband a committee that theoretically doesn’t exist, yet, that is what we apparently witnessed. It will be interesting to see how the Meeting Minutes note the action.

But, the even more curious statement was the reason stated WHY the committee would be disbanded: For lack of interest.

Let’s review some facts:

• The POHOA Board never made any attempt to recruit by informing the ENTIRE community
• Only select individuals were approached. Ask yourself: Did I get asked to join this committee? No? Ask yourself why. Yes? Why you, and not everyone else?
• If the Board arbitrarily set the committee membership at 5 homeowners, and pre-assigned 3 of these members, then only 2 open seats remained.
• I asked, in writing, to be on this committee, meaning there was only 1 seat left to fill.

The obvious conclusion is that the POHOA Board could not recruit ONE SINGLE HOMEOWNER to join this committee, yet never did a public and equal outreach to all homeowners. The pre-selected homeowners were free to keep recruitment for the committee within their full control. Anyone inquiring was told to wait for some “official digital communication” which never came.

This does not, by any means, comply with the Open Meetings Act. If any two persons got together and discussed the matter of this committee, including the subject of recruitment, those communications are subject to that law – which means their actions (including choosing who to recruit) would need to be at open meeting, where everyone was invited to attend (and a prepublished agenda).

They didn’t do that.

It also indicates that while this voting bloc may control the governance of the HOA, their supporting voters are unwilling to participate, even at the committee level. This is not just a sign of apathy (what the HOA Industry claims is the problem at legislative and stakeholder meetings, such as the HOA Task Force), but a sign that the POHOA Board is unable to lead. To be unable to get one single volunteer is a problem.

However, when there ARE at least 2 persons who wanted to participate (Dr. John Tunna and I), what we witnessed is the POHOA Board literally choose to shut down this special committee to avoid having anyone that disagrees with them participate. And, that is the consistent problem. They want to control everything and make it appear as though the entire community is unified on every decision made, when, in reality, they are doing things non-transparently, hiding their actions as best they can, and trying to make it appear as though they are compliant with CCIOA, the Non-Profit Act, the Open Meetings Act, and the Governing Documents. It’s not working.

So, now we have no Special Architectural Committee. We already had an ACC. And, I’ve asked why that existing committee could not take up the same issue. The CCRs literally give that committee the power to author the Landscaping Policy and Guidelines (challenging the notion that ONLY the Board can change policies, repeated frequently at meetings). Literally Article IX Section 3 tells us that the ACC authors these documents, not the Board.

But, that raises similar questions: Who is on the ACC? When and where do they meet? Where are the agendas and meeting minutes?

I’ve asked. And, similarly, President Ballweber writes back all angry for being asked, while trying to continue saying that they never violate the law or are non-compliant. Committees are required to meet openly, allow all homeowners to participate, and have to keep records. Our ACC tried doing that for a brief period in May of 2019 – and when two homeowners recorded the 5/29/19 meeting, Walker Flanary went berserk. He tried to take people’s phones and purses from them at the next meeting, and eventually tried calling the police for trespassing in his basement – where he unilaterally scheduled the meeting, but didn’t invite the entire community!

We’ve had meetings in public places ever since.

So, why can’t the ACC meet in the open, and we, as a community, discuss compliance with SB23-178? Why can’t we, as an entire community, talk without being limited to 2 minutes, about these changes to the landscaping requirements? Why are the same old, same old people trying to control the rewriting of the rules?

I think we know the answer: Because compromise isn’t possible with these people. It’s their way or the highway – or a lawsuit.

It’s time for new leadership, but given how poorly recruitment went for this committee, it’s doubtful that anyone will step up at the upcoming elections. Particularly once they learn about compliance with the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).

In the meantime, non-compliance with SB23-178 began on August 10, 2023. We are exposed to liability, particularly if any homeowner were to initiate the 45-day notice period in the statute. And, now we know that the POHOA Board is actively avoiding legal advice and review on major policy changes.

Also, meanwhile, the POHOA Board claimed to have produced $15k in profit in 2023, is raising assessments nearly 5%, but then projects only $9.5k profit in 2024. That’s a strong indication that they are planning to spend even more of our money on . . . something secret (likely raising the legal budget). Because when asked for a copy of the budget they passed on 11/14, they absolutely refused to provide one. They only want to disclose it so close to the 12/5 annual meeting that no one has time to figure out what is going on.

And, they wonder why recruitment is going so poorly.

UPDATE: 11/22/23 RESPONSE FROM PRESIDENT BALLWEBER

In a confusing response, President Ballweber claims that there were 3 volunteers for a committee that was not yet formed, and they were not appointed. Yet, she doesn’t address the fact that others (including myself) volunteered, but were not named in the meeting minutes. I was never extended an invite to join in spite of emailing the Board more than once about interest in the committee.

She also claims John Tunna was invited (not through any “official digital communication”) privately, but it is not clear whether the other volunteers or Board members made the invitation.